Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Green Cochoa]

5 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The original Greek confirms that there were both male and female elders in that body of elders that appointed Timothy.  

Show me.

 

5 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Paul also regarded Phoebe as a leader (prostatis) and minister (diakonos) of the NT Church and Junia (a woman) as being among the apostles.  

Your mistake regarding Junia leads me to question your other conclusions.  I am aware, however, that Phoebe was referred to as diakonos.  This term was the New Testament's term for servant, minister (which means servant), or deacon.  Our church pastors are supposed to be our servants.  But lest some find that shocking, we are all supposed to be servants--called to serve others in selflessness.  Naturally, this does not mean that all servants are to be ordained to gospel ministry of the sacred desk.

Now, back to Junia.  You can neither prove that Junia/Junius was a woman, nor that he/she was an apostle.  The Bible doesn't say definitively.  That you have accepted the popular nonsense about him/her and have stated it as if factual shows something about your hermeneutics.  As Blue Letter Bible has it:

Quote

Salute Andronicus and Junia, ^G2458 my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Romans 16:7)

1. Junia = "youthful"

   1. a Christian woman at Rome, mentioned by Paul as one of his kinsfolk and fellow prisoners

In that list of individuals whom Paul is addressing, we see:

Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen

My fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, . . .

(See verses before and after vs. 7 for more context, vis-à-vis, the full list.)

 

Tom, if you could do just one thing for me, I might find your interpretation more plausible: Establish that either Andronicus or Junia was one of Paul's "fellowprisoners."  If you cannot establish this, it seems clear that this was addressing the next entity whom Paul wished to remember.

Now, for the truth about about Junia and what it means for Adventist women--from the pen of Mrs. White.  Mrs. White, like the Bible, appears to have mentioned Junia but once.  Yet the passage in which this mention is given is precisely in the context of women's work for God.  So this is an excellent answer to the question that women may have.

 

The Lord has a work for women as well as for men to do. They can accomplish a good work for God, if they will learn first in the school of Christ the precious, all-important lesson of meekness. They must not only bear the name of Christ, but possess His spirit. They must walk even as He walked purifying their souls from everything that defiles. Then they will be able to benefit others by presenting the all-sufficiency of Jesus. {NPU Gleaner, December 4, 1907 par. 7}

 

Paul in his letters to the churches makes mention of women who were laborers with him in the gospel. Writing to the Romans, he says: "I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you; for she hath been a succorer of many, and of myself also. Greet Aquila and Priscilla, my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my sake laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the first-fruits of Achaia unto Christ. {NPU Gleaner, December 4, 1907 par. 8}

 

"Greet Mary, who bestowed much labor on us. Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Greet Amplias, my brother in the Lord. . . . Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa who labor in the Lord." {NPU Gleaner, December 4, 1907 par. 9}

 

Again, to the Philippian church the apostle writes: "Therefore my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved. I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. I entreat thee also, true yoke-fellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow-laborers, whose names are in the book of life. Rejoice in the Lord alway, and again I say, Rejoice. Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God which passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. {NPU Gleaner, December 4, 1907 par. 10}

 

"Finally, brethren whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, or if there be any praise, think on these things." {NPU Gleaner, December 4, 1907 par. 11}

 

It is not only upon those who preach the word that God has placed the responsibility of seeking to save sinners. He has given this work to all. The words, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," are spoken to each one of Christ's followers. All who are ordained unto the life of Christ are ordained to work for the salvation of their fellow-men. The same, longing that He felt for the saving of the lost is to be manifest in them. Not all can fill the same place, but for all there is a place and work. All upon whom God's blessings have been bestowed are to respond by actual service; every gift is to be employed for the advancement of His kingdom. {NPU Gleaner, December 4, 1907 par. 12}

In that passage, Ellen White makes clear reference to "a work for women as well as for men."  But this language is strange if one wishes to believe Ellen White would have promoted women as the equals of men in every line of work.  She might have said instead, "men and women" must do "the work. . . ."  And she definitely would not need to have mention that "It is not only upon those who preach the word that God has placed the responsibility of seeking to save sinners. He has given this work to all." It would already have been obvious.  The work of saving sinners is made the work of all by this statement, whereas "those who preach the word" are clearly not "all."

[Tom Wetmore]

How about EGW's statement about preparing both men and women to be pastors? Do you accept that EGW herself frequently "preached the word"?  During her lifetime there were a good number (as a percentage more than even today in NAD) of women evangelists that were licensed ministers.  During her lifetime EGW preached more than 10,000 sermons.

Quote

"It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God." [Emphasis added]

As for Junia, I would invite you to do some serious reading on the most reliable Biblical scholarship. There are specific topics in this forum if you just check through the topic menu.  Read the linked source articles.  Here is one published in Ministry Magazine - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/07/junia-the-apostle . That Junia was a woman is not really in doubt. It isn't nonsense and is the thoughtful scholarship of people much smarter and more knowledgable than either you or me.  Your spin on the above seems nonsensical though. The original Greek and every translation are quite clear that in that one sentence Paul is speaking  only of Andronicus and Junia as being his kinsmen and fellow prisoners, apostles and followers of Christ even before Paul.  He is sending greetings to specific persons by name, and not broadly to an additional class of nameless people that may have been in prison with him and all who had come to Christ before he had.  That is a very strained and implausible reading of the text.

There is at least one specific topic about about Phoebe as well.  Phoebe is the one of the most compelling NT examples of a women in ministry and leadership in the NT.  Do some serious reading of the topic and the linked source article on Phoebe.

I am not sure if the part about the body of elders in Ephesus including women has its own separate topic, but I will look for it. 

None of this is new stuff.  It has been discussed here over and over.  And it is not original arguments being made up on the spot.  

Edited July 2, 2016 by Tom Wetmore
clarification and typo correction...

[Rossw]

4 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

was 1 Timothy 4:12-16 not written for all believers?  If not, perhaps there should be a Bible wherein the texts for women to read could be separated out from those strictly for men....

You're attempting to isolate this verse but we must also keep in mind 1 Timothy 3:1-7 was written for all believers also.

[Rossw]

21 hours ago, LadyRachelLynn said:

The church I went to as a small child broke up because of a specific male pastor.  You can't say that all women pastors are horrible pastors because they messed up a church.  Men have done it too.

There are many many people who should not be in ministry. I have seen studies showing denominations who promote WO statisticaly decline.

We should accept many if not most who go into ministry were not called. Because many are not called but still go into ministry we should not assume any women are called to church leadership.

[Rossw]

15 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw said below:

In China, there are tens of thousands of people who worship as SDAs in SDA congregations that are led by women.  If I understand Rossw correctly, he would consider those congregations to not be led by God.  Rossw, again I am not attempting to put words in your mouth.  If I am wrong, please correct me.  This is simply how I understand you.

Yes, I know that in China there are some congregations that are led by men.

 

 

Just because there is women leadership in China does not mean they represent God's ideal. At the risk of derogatory responses from Coaspen we must acknowledge many Christians get divorced even though Jesus said not to.(Matthew 19)

[Rossw]

15 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw asked, below:

The arguments for the ordination of women have been published in books and articles.  In fact  this issue was studied and published prior to the past General Conference.  It would be impossible for me to respond to you with the 100s of pages that have been published on this question.  What has been published says it better than I could repeat it.  Therefore, I cannot answer your question.

However, please note that I have stated many times, to include here in CA, that the Biblical issue is not that of ordination.  Rather, it is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture. 

 

 

The same can be said for the anti-ordination side. I prefer to stick with what Scripture says if that's OK?

[Rossw]

5 hours ago, CoAspen said:

(I fibbed...re:thats all)......

We aint talking about the sabbath...Classic avoidance of answering questions, straight out of the 'when all else fails' book...redirect, redirect!!!

Oh, and that fits most of all the answers to Kevin H also.

(...locking my mouth such....)

Do you ever look at the big picture or do you just nitpick the irrelevant minutiae? 

[Rossw]

11 hours ago, Kevin H said:

If you lived in the ancient world and traveled with the caravans and was looking for an ordained priest you would look for someone with a tassel that had a blue thread in it.

God commanded in Numbers for all the Hebrews, including men and women, to wear this sign of being an ordained priest making them a kingdom of priests.

About 200 years before Jesus as a movement started for Jews to STOP having female priests and to STOP having female rabbis, those involved in this anti-ordination movement began teaching that women should STOP having this sign of being an ordained priest in her wardrobe, that since they believed that only men should be priests and rabbis that only men should wear that blue thread. Thus the anti-ordination people rejected the thus saith the Lord that both men and women should wear this article of clothing that identified them as an ordained priest.

I thought Greg rightly pointed out there were so many sects at that time we can't just look historically at those sects as actually following proper, God directed, Levitical laws.

In other words, looking at what the Jews did in in the time leading to Jesus is completely irrelevant to actual Biblical ordination. We could liken your points to if we were to pay attention to the modern Jewish nation to assist in our understanding of Ordination. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Rossw]

11 hours ago, Kevin H said:

First I am wondering which Ellen White quote you are referring to. As for 1 Timothy 3 there are linguistic and historical issues that indicate that those who are using it as a proof text against women's ordination are using it in the same way as Sundaykeepers use the text for the thief on the cross and Paul's "Absent from the body and present with the Lord" to say that the dead go to heaven when they die or the "One man esteems one day above another" to keep Sunday instead of Sabbath.

Trying to support "Headship Theology" (which is based on Calvinism and not Arminianism/Wesleyan as our beliefs are) we have downplayed the role of Prophet. The Bible does have a hierarchy. Christ is the head and the highest authority. Then come the Apostles, those who saw Christ both before and after his resurrection. There is a potential of over 500 apostles but if you want to be picky and point out the 12 male names we have, we have to remember that Jesus actually had 82 direct followers. To say that Jesus did not have any female apostles we have to prove that all 82 were male (and to make a strong case all over 500 as all male.) You must give proof or evidence that there were only male apostles. That Jesus never once allowed a woman to sit at his feet when he sat and taught. The Apostles had authorities over others.

Third comes Prophets. After the apostles died off the Prophets have the most authority over others.

Below the Prophets comes the pastors and teachers.

The headship people have to reject this Biblical teaching and our people who oppose women's ordination have to put down Mrs. White's authority to support this tradition of man.

I am very aware of Calvinism's belief of headship. I've discussed and debated with them over the topic. It's hard to dispute their belief that Adam is our headship until we enter into Christ's headship through belief. Their terminology may be different but they are not necessarily wrong. EGW seemed to liken to it in the quote Green posted which you may have missed.

[Rossw]

50 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

How about EGW's statement about preparing both men and women to be pastors? 

See my thread with Steven Bohr's video.

[Tom Wetmore]

@Green Cochoa regarding the female elders at Ephesus...

Here is the quick "show me" you asked for.  The Greek word translated as "presbytery" in the KJV, or in other words, "body/counsel of elders", is presbyterion. The related word referring to an individual member of the presbyterian is presbyteros, or elder. Continuing on to 1 Timothy 5:1-2, Paul is still talking about that body of elders (Remember no chapter or verse breaks in the original letter.) and how Timothy should relate to and work with them. In 5:1-2 Paul tells Timothy to treat the elders as he would his father (v.1) and as his mother (v.2).  Both verses use the word presbyteros in reference to the senior male and female members of the body of elders.  Since it would have also included younger members as well, Timothy was counseled to treat those younger ones as his brothers and sisters. He then speaks of those that are widows and their special role and notice in vs 17-19 Paul is still talking about the elders.  

[Kevin H]

3 hours ago, Rossw said:

I thought Greg rightly pointed out there were so many sects at that time we can't just look historically at those sects as actually following proper, God directed, Levitical laws.

In other words, looking at what the Jews did in in the time leading to Jesus is completely irrelevant to actual Biblical ordination. We could liken your points to if we were to pay attention to the modern Jewish nation to assist in our understanding of Ordination. They are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Would you please clarify your comment? What I am pointing out is that in the ancient world the tassel with the blue thread was only worn by ordained priests. While Moses gave a command for the dress of the priests serving in the sanctuary, he also commanded that everyone wear what would have been recognized as an article only worn by priests in the ancient world.

Lets say that we could go into a time machine and go back into Old Testament days. We go back and find ourselves traveling with a caravan. As we enter a town we see some people having the tassel with the blue cord and we think "Oh look, there is a Hebrew" but what we would learn was that they were a priest. If someone in the caravan needed to talk to a priest about some spiritual need he would look for someone with that tassel.

As we travel on we eventually cross the border into Israel or Judah. There we see something that we did not see in the other cities or villages we passed through. In those other villages and cities only a few had that tassel with the blue thread. Now we are in a country where everyone is wearing it. If someone in the caravan needed to talk to a priest he could approach anyone with his need. After we move on from Israel and Judah we again end up in places where only a few people are wearing that tassel with a blue thread.

We return to our time machine and move up to the time of Jesus. Again we are traveling with a caravan and enter towns and cities where there are only a few people wearing the tassels. Eventually our caravan enters Judah and what a surprise from our trip during Old Testament times. We see all the men wearing this tassel but only a few women wearing it. If we ask why the women were no longer wearing it we would learn that there is a movement in Judaism to stop having female priests and rabbis. Since the tassel means that the wearer is an ordained priest and there was this movement to oppose women being priests and rabbis they wanted women to STOP wearing that sign of being an ordained priest.

[LadyRachelLynn]

It is my understanding that the direction to wear the tassel, also known as tzitzits, was given to everyone, NOT exclusively to the the ordained priests.

Numbers 15:38-40 New King James Version (NKJV) 38 “Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners. 39 And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined, 40 and that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your God."

Numbers 15:38-40 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) 38 “Speak to the people of Isra’el, instructing them to make, through all their generations, tzitziyot on the corners of their garments, and to put with the tzitzit on each corner a blue thread. 39 It is to be a tzitzit for you to look at and thereby remember all of Adonai’s mitzvot and obey them, so that you won’t go around wherever your own heart and eyes lead you to prostitute yourselves; 40 but it will help you remember and obey all my mitzvot and be holy for your God."

Edited July 2, 2016 by LadyRachelLynn
formatting

[Green Cochoa]

6 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa regarding the female elders at Ephesus...

Here is the quick "show me" you asked for.  The Greek word translated as "presbytery" in the KJV, or in other words, "body/counsel of elders", is presbyterion. The related word referring to an individual member of the presbyterian is presbyteros, or elder. Continuing on to 1 Timothy 5:1-2, Paul is still talking about that body of elders (Remember no chapter or verse breaks in the original letter.) and how Timothy should relate to and work with them. In 5:1-2 Paul tells Timothy to treat the elders as he would his father (v.1) and as his mother (v.2).  Both verses use the word presbyteros in reference to the senior male and female members of the body of elders.  Since it would have also included younger members as well, Timothy was counseled to treat those younger ones as his brothers and sisters. He then speaks of those that are widows and their special role and notice in vs 17-19 Paul is still talking about the elders.  

Thank you for the explanation.  I appreciate knowing the reasoning behind this interpretation.  In examining it more closely, I see that Paul uses two separate words, as you alluded to.  In 1 Timothy 4, he uses a word that is the only occurrence in the NT for Paul's writings.  He uses the other word, an adjective, in all other places where he refers to elders, a word more similar to our "seniors" or "elderly" today.  But the word he used in 1 Timothy 4 has one significant difference in meaning: it is a noun based on a committee/council/organizational eldership position.  Here's the definition of each, courtesy of BlueLetterBible.

Quote

presbyterion, n.

1. body of elders, presbytery, senate, council

   1. of the Jewish elders

   2. of the elders of any body (assembly) of Christians

presbyters, adj. [Comparative of presbus (elderly)]

1. elder, of age,

   1. the elder of two people

   2. advanced in life, an elder, a senior

      1. forefathers

2. a term of rank or office

   1. among the Jews

      1. members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)

      2. of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice

   2. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

   3. the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

The grammatical difference seems significant.  While the one means "elderly" the other means "elder."  The one referring to "elderly" can be referring to an elected/appointed position, or it can refer to elderly/older people more generally; whereas, in the first case, the noun form of this word appears not to be used in the sense of "seniors" so much as for "officers."  Suffice it to say, the assumption that Paul is still talking about the same group of "elders" in chapter 5 ignores the fact that he deliberately, just three or four verses later, selected a different Greek word that has a different usage.

 

[Green Cochoa]

4 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Would you please clarify your comment? What I am pointing out is that in the ancient world the tassel with the blue thread was only worn by ordained priests. While Moses gave a command for the dress of the priests serving in the sanctuary, he also commanded that everyone wear what would have been recognized as an article only worn by priests in the ancient world.

As I understand the Bible (citations below):

1) The priests did not wear a blue tassel, they wore a blue ROBE--all blue.

2) The priests had multi-colored "pomegranates" hanging from their robes, which included some blue.

 

Blue robe: "And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue." (Exodus 28:31)

Multi-colored "pomegranates" on robe: "And beneath upon the hem of it thou shalt make pomegranates of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, round about the hem thereof; and bells of gold between them round about:" (Exodus 28:33)

The rest of your "story" about the women makes about as much sense as that priests and people wore the same attire (tassel) in former times.  Nonsense.  When people in Israel saw a priest, there was no question about it--and no woman ever wore such attire as did the priest, i.e., a very special outfit, from the ephod and breastplate down to the linen breeches.  

 

[Tom Wetmore]

7 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Thank you for the explanation.  I appreciate knowing the reasoning behind this interpretation.  In examining it more closely, I see that Paul uses two separate words, as you alluded to.  In 1 Timothy 4, he uses a word that is the only occurrence in the NT for Paul's writings.  He uses the other word, an adjective, in all other places where he refers to elders, a word more similar to our "seniors" or "elderly" today.  But the word he used in 1 Timothy 4 has one significant difference in meaning: it is a noun based on a committee/council/organizational eldership position.  Here's the definition of each, courtesy of BlueLetterBible.

The grammatical difference seems significant.  While the one means "elderly" the other means "elder."  The one referring to "elderly" can be referring to an elected/appointed position, or it can refer to elderly/older people more generally; whereas, in the first case, the noun form of this word appears not to be used in the sense of "seniors" so much as for "officers."  Suffice it to say, the assumption that Paul is still talking about the same group of "elders" in chapter 5 ignores the fact that he deliberately, just three or four verses later, selected a different Greek word that has a different usage.

 

He speaks first in chapter 4 of the body of elders, presbyterion.  In chapter 5 he is only using presbyteros, which includes a connotation of senior or older by comparison, it is very frequently used throughout the NT, as here, in the context of speaking of a body of ruling elders.  Paul does not here use the related term, presbus, that means only old, or aged.  (Compare his counsel to Titus where he does use that term.)

[Kevin H]

LadyRachelLynn and Green Cochoa, what you are saying is right but it is NOT an argument against what I am pointing out. Green you keep pointing out correctly the uniform worn by priests as they are on duty ministering in the Sanctuary and Temple (and maybe tent of the meeting). The item of clothing that God through Moses commanded all the people to wear in their every day life was a little reminder that the priesthood was larger than those serving in the sanctuary/temple and tent of the meeting. That they were to think about God's law and that they were a kingdom of priests. The Role of the Hebrews was to be in a piece of land where Europe, Africa, Asia and the desert world all met. The major intersection of the great trade routes of the world. This had a missionary purpose.

As the caravans from all over the world would pass through cities in different parts of the world they would see a few people who would wear the same tassels that we find Moses commanding every Hebrew to wear. As the people in the caravans saw people here and there all over the world wearing the tassels they knew that those people were ordained priests, sort of similar to if you find people wearing a tee shirt with a military unit's mark on it and you know that even though they are not in full uniform that the clothes they wear indicate that they either are in the military or were in the military. You can get a handout as to what these soldiers need to wear when on duty and not find these articles of clothing.

LadyRachellLynn, yes, among the Hebrews Moses commanded EVERYONE to wear this item. Yes, when the caravans came through Judah/Israel they would see everyone wearing that tassel. But when they were in other countries they would not see everyone wearing the tassel, they would only see people who were ordained priests wearing it on their clothing. Yes Green Cochoa, the priests serving in the sanctuary/temple/tent of meeting were in full uniform when serving on duty and did not need this small token article of clothing identifying in the off duty clothing that they are still priests. This tassel was a reminder to all the Hebrews that the priesthood was larger than the decedents of Aaron serving in the sanctuary/temple or the decedents of Moses serving in the tent of meeting. But that they were to be a kingdom of priests. And a sign to the merchants from all over the world traveling in their caravans that if they have spiritual needs that they can approach anyone in Judah and Israel.

My point is that the Rabbis living 200 years before Jesus knew what that tassel meant. And as they started a movement to have the Jews STOP having women priests and rabbis, they did not want women to wear that article of clothing that identified them as a priest in a kingdom of priests. They said that while every son of Israel could wear that tassel but NO women. Thus they substituted a tradition of man for the law of God. God said for everyone man and women to wear this. They said "Only men can be priests or rabbis so only men can wear this and the women need to stop wearing it."

 

[Green Cochoa]

Kevin,

I have yet to see the text that says the priests were to wear a blue tassel--so, for starters, you have yet to establish that one.  The people may have worn a blue cord/hem/thread, but the priests wore a blue robe, an ephod with blue lace, and a mixed-color pomegranate hanging on their robe which included some blue; no blue tassel.

Secondly, the term "kingdom of priests" is one of the most misconstrued.  It is often used to imply that every man, woman, and child must have been a "priest."  Such thinking is simply incorrect.  Contemplate, for example, the following passage from Mrs. White.

"Their obedience to the law of God would make them marvels of prosperity before the nations of the world. He who could give them wisdom and skill in all cunning work would continue to be their teacher, and would ennoble and elevate them through obedience to His laws. If obedient, they would be preserved from the diseases that afflicted other nations, and would be blessed with vigor of intellect. The glory of God, His majesty and power, were to be revealed in all their prosperity. They were to be a kingdom of priests and princes. God furnished them with every facility for becoming the greatest nation on the earth."  {COL 288.3} 

Notice that they were to be a kingdom of priests and princes, NOT priestesses and princesses.  Not once in the entire Bible does God establish either priestess or princess.

Exodus 19:6 says: "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

That specifies simply that the "kingdom" or "nation" of Israel would have priests.  This statement is given before the Ten Commandments were spoken from Mt. Sinai, before God had established the priestly order, and before the tabernacle in the wilderness had been designed and built.  The priesthood of Israel came into being, therefore, shortly after this statement.  And what did God establish with it?  Were any women to minister in the sanctuary/holy place?

Exodus 19:6 is the very first verse in the Bible to use the expression "kingdom of ____."  The next one is this:  "And Moses gave unto them, even to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, and unto half the tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, the land, with the cities thereof in the coasts, even the cities of the country round about." (Numbers 32:33)  (See also Deut. 3:4, 10, 13; Josh. 13:12, 21, 27, 30-31.)

Obviously, not everyone in Bashan was "Og," and not everyone in the land of the Amorites was "Sihon."  They were the leaders, and their kingdoms were governed by them.  Israel's leaders were to be the priests, and Israel, being a theocracy, was to be governed by these spiritual leaders.  This form of government ceased at the institution of King Saul as monarch.  The first Biblical mention of "kingdom of Israel" occurs in a post-Saul world.

Consider a few more "kingdom of ____" expressions to be found in the Bible.  Do any of these imply that everyone in the kingdom was of the "of ____" entity?

"kingdom of the LORD" (Is everyone the LORD?)

"kingdom of Ahasuerus" (Is everyone Ahasuerus?)

"kingdom of his father" (Is everyone the father?)

"kingdom of brass" (Is everyone brass?)

"kingdom of Persia" (Is everyone Persia?)

"kingdom of Babylon" (Is every city/person Babylon?)

"kingdom of heaven" (Is everyone heaven?)

"kingdom of God" (Is everyone God?) etc.

"kingdom of Christ and of God" 

"kingdom of His dear Son" 

"kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"

As a matter of fact, there is only one "kingdom of ____" expression in the entire Bible that might properly be applied in the manner in which most attempt to apply the "kingdom of priests": that is "kingdom of men."  If we take that "men" to refer to mankind generally, then you could say that this one would be able to refer to every individual within that kingdom.  However, one cannot rule out the alternate, and more probable, meaning that the "kingdom of men" refers to the leaders of that kingdom in the same manner in which all of the other "kingdom of ____" statements do.  Once we realize, then, how the Bible typically uses that expression, should we continue to use "kingdom of priests" in a manner inconsistent with the rest of the Bible?

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, you can do much better than you have done here.

I am surprised at you.

 

[Kevin H]

Green, have you ever considered contacting our colleges and tell them that you need to redesign their curriculum on their Life and Writings of Mrs. White classes, their Old Testament Theology classes and their Biblical archaeology classes? You constantly argue with what I have been shown convincingly in the classroom, when encouraged to look at the evidence yourself you come up with excuses not to and only want second hand repeating of the evidence, and you never find the evidence strong enough.

While I don't mind the questions you get to a point of grabbing at straws to prove that what our teachers in our schools are teaching error. And you whine when offered a higher level of examining the evidence than discussions here.

Your arguments are similar to as if there was a discussion:

GC: You say that the dead are sleeping and not going to heaven at death, but my Bible reads "Verily I say unto you, today thou shall be with me in paradise." 

person you discuss with (PD): If you move the coma to between  today and thou it shows that the promise was given that day, not that the thief went to heaven that day.

GC: But you are twisting the text.

PD: No, the punctuation was not in the original, it was added by people later and here they got it in the wrong spot.

GC: Do you have a proof text that says that the punctuations were not in the original?

PD: Of  course there is not a proof text saying that. This is just a simple thing known about ancient languages and Bible translation.

GC: Oh, so you can't prove your point by the Bible, your argument is based on something outside of the Bible.  That shows that I'm right and you are wrong, the thief on the cross did go to heaven on that day.  

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, you can do much better than you have done here.

I am surprised at you.

 

Instead of making your surprise so obvious, why not select a few key texts to show support for your view?

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Green, have you ever considered contacting our colleges and tell them that you need to redesign their curriculum on their Life and Writings of Mrs. White classes, their Old Testament Theology classes and their Biblical archaeology classes? You constantly argue with what I have been shown convincingly in the classroom, when encouraged to look at the evidence yourself you come up with excuses not to and only want second hand repeating of the evidence, and you never find the evidence strong enough.

While I don't mind the questions you get to a point of grabbing at straws to prove that what our teachers in our schools are teaching error. And you whine when offered a higher level of examining the evidence than discussions here.

Your arguments are similar to as if there was a discussion:

GC: You say that the dead are sleeping and not going to heaven at death, but my Bible reads "Verily I say unto you, today thou shall be with me in paradise." 

person you discuss with (PD): If you move the coma to between  today and thou it shows that the promise was given that day, not that the thief went to heaven that day.

GC: But you are twisting the text.

PD: No, the punctuation was not in the original, it was added by people later and here they got it in the wrong spot.

GC: Do you have a proof text that says that the punctuations were not in the original?

PD: Of  course there is not a proof text saying that. This is just a simple thing known about ancient languages and Bible translation.

GC: Oh, so you can't prove your point by the Bible, your argument is based on something outside of the Bible.  That shows that I'm right and you are wrong, the thief on the cross did go to heaven on that day.  

Perhaps you have enjoyed creating the above fictional conversation, because, naturally, it is a straw man argument.  It is much easier to argue against the straw than the real issue, right?

I can prove from the Bible the inconsistency of that misplaced comma, can't you?  And if the Bible were not sufficient, God has given us what we need to know from Mrs. White for places where the Bible's message may be important and insufficiently clear for our modern weakened minds to grasp.

"The thief on the cross offered his prayer to Christ. "Remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom," he said. (Luke 23:42.) And at once the response came, Verily I say unto thee today (as I hang on the cross in humiliation and suffering), thou shalt be with Me in Paradise. . . ."  {COL 263.4}

I think Gregory might have something to say to you.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, you base part of your argument on a thesis that  is not founded on the Bible.  Take the following example of what you said:

There is nothing in the Bible that claims that every human in the world is of Persia or any of the other of your listings--Ahasuerus, father, brass, etc.  Rather, the logic of the sentence, which would be understood by most people is that Persia has a kingdom which is defined by boundaries.  So also, the Lord has a kingdom which is defined by boundaries.

Now a Biblical text was cited in which the Biblical writer defined the boundaries of a kingdom of priests that included both males and females.  The Biblical boundaries included males and females.  It would be beyond belief for one to suggest that the Biblical writer also included pagans and other such who were outside of the followers of God.

As I said, you can do much better than what you did in this response.  And you commonly do much better.

I did not initially respond to your post due to the fact that I thought the error in your thinking was so obvious that I did not need to respond. But, you have asked for a response.  So, I have given it.    

 

"kingdom of the LORD" (Is everyone the LORD?)

"kingdom of Ahasuerus" (Is everyone Ahasuerus?)

"kingdom of his father" (Is everyone the father?)

"kingdom of brass" (Is everyone brass?)

"kingdom of Persia" (Is everyone Persia?)

"kingdom of Babylon" (Is every city/person Babylon?)

"kingdom of heaven" (Is everyone heaven?)

"kingdom of God" (Is everyone God?) etc.

"kingdom of Christ and of God" 

"kingdom of His dear Son" 

"kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ"

[Green Cochoa]

42 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, you base part of your argument on a thesis that  is not founded on the Bible.  Take the following example of what you said:

There is nothing in the Bible that claims that every human in the world is of Persia or any of the other of your listings--Ahasuerus, father, brass, etc.  Rather, the logic of the sentence, which would be understood by most people is that Persia has a kingdom which is defined by boundaries.  So also, the Lord has a kingdom which is defined by boundaries.

Now a Biblical text was cited in which the Biblical writer defined the boundaries of a kingdom of priests that included both males and females.  The Biblical boundaries included males and females.  It would be beyond belief for one to suggest that the Biblical writer also included pagans and other such who were outside of the followers of God.

As I said, you can do much better than what you did in this response.  And you commonly do much better.

I did not initially respond to your post due to the fact that I thought the error in your thinking was so obvious that I did not need to respond. But, you have asked for a response.  So, I have given it.    

It is good that you gave it, because this misunderstanding can now the more easily be cleared up.  I did not mean to imply that everyone in the world was a Persian.  Not at all.  I said "Persia."  (Note: I may, on occasion, fall prey to typos like anyone else; however, I am a very good speller and my spelling here was just as I desired it to be--the same as that of the Bible's usage.)  Is _anyone_ Persia?  Even one person?  Granted, nowadays some girl probably has this for her given name.  But the Bible is not speaking of such.

The point was simple.  Perhaps you missed it over a mistaken understanding.  The point was simply that when someone says "kingdom of  ____", not everyone in that kingdom would be in the ____ group.  Consider "kingdom of Ahasuerus."  Was everyone in that kingdom "Ahasuerus"?  Obviously not, right?  I would challenge you to use a Bible search software to find every occurrence of "kingdom of" in the Bible and, setting aside for now the phrase "kingdom of priests" which we wish to better understand, consider all of the other forms and whether or not any of them establishes the ____ portion to be applicable to every person in that kingdom in the sense of being. (This is the sense the women's ordinators want to use.)  Is another sense, e.g. having or possessing more applicable?

[Kevin H]

Green, you give Bible verses and read into them your interpretation, theories and tradition and that's "Biblical" when confronted with the historical, cultural, linguistic studies that question your interpretation you cannot consider those pieces of evidence because you decide that none of that if Biblical.