CLICK HERE to download your copy of Phil Mills MD Sabbath School class notes “Adding to God’s Word: Humility and Truthfulness vs. Pride and Lies (Proverbs 30:1-8). While women’s ordination is not directly mentioned until the third page, the lessons are drawn sharply.
Mills’ short document makes important observations about the way the women’s ordination question has been handled by the North American Division (NAD). At the highest level the world church has repeatedly expressed its will on this matter. The NAD drive for women’s ordination has continued relentlessly. In his notes, Mills especially highlights certain basic elements in a biblical approach to determining what is God’s will in a matter. After presenting clear examples, Mills turns to women’s ordination. He refers to the 2013 NAD BRC Report to TOSC. Mills’ notes succinctly and clearly illustrate key questions.
Categories
Biblical Interpretation Council of Adventist Pastors (CAP) Doctrine of Holy Scripture Doctrine of the Church Doctrine of Unity General Conference Session 2015 San Antonio Insubordination NAD TOSC Report North American Division (NAD) Ordination Without Regard to Gender OrdinationTruth.com Phil Mills Proverbs Sabbath School class notes Seventh-day Adventist Church The larger issues Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) Women in Ministry Women's Ordination
45 replies on “Women's ordination and Adding to God's Word”
One of my patients, a non-SDA, was in the class when I gave this class a week and a half ago. My wife and I have a Bible study with her during the week. After this class and our Bible study last week, with tears she requested baptism. She wants to be part of a world-wide people that follow the Bible. She will be baptized a week from tomorrow.
Excellent! So refreshing to read such a clear biblical response to WO.
Phil,
PTL for that report. We go to a Baptist prayer meeting. How can we face a Bible believing church and tell them what is going on in God’s church? They may not have the truth in so many other doctrines because of their leaders who rejected the great Millerite movement but anyone who just reads the Bible has to come to the conclusion that men have a headship role. That really is a strong teaching in most Baptist’s churches.
May the vote at the GC session be a strong no vote.
Hi Phil, it is nice to meet you! The story that I was told goes something like this: I was born in November, 1947, during a series of evangelistic meeting in Detroit led by J. L. Shuler. When the time came for my mother to go to the hospital, my father either borrowed a car owned by O. J. Mills or O. J. actually drove my parents to the hospital!
On the topic of “adding to God’s Word,” I struggle to understand how you decide what is “adding” and what is “not adding.” The Bible says nothing about driving cars, four organizational levels above the local church, or shaking hands. Instead it speaks of walking without even a staff on mission trips (Lk 9:3), one organizational level above the local church (Acts 15), and greeting one another with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20). Are we “adding” to Scripture in each of those cases by our current practices?
If indeed the Bible neither explicitly prohibits the ordination of women nor mandates it, we do well to follow the Bible to the T by neither prohibiting it nor mandating it. How can following the Bible exactly be construed as “adding to God’s Word?”
Doug, My parents were friends with your parents. My dad was a convert to the message. He was a pastor of another denomination.
Fortunately there is no reason to “struggle to understand how you decide what is ‘adding’ and what is ‘not adding’ to God’s word.” God’s word is very clear. Jesus said, “If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (Joh 7:17). Our difficulty is surrendering. That is why “none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand” (Dan 12:10).
It is hard to understand what we don’t want to do. “Disobedience has closed the door to a vast amount of knowledge that might have been gained from the Scriptures. Understanding means obedience to God’s commandments. The Scriptures are not to be adapted to meet the prejudice and jealousy of men. They can be understood only by those who are humbly seeking for a knowledge of the truth that they may obey it” (COL 112).
It might help one to read the document being discussed. However, as Brother Phil Mills elucidates, on the basis of the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, it is certainly possible one may read, and yet, be unwilling to see. Per the question raised by Bro. Matacio, Bro. Mills has amply revealed the manufactured conundrum of Scripture being “silent” to the issue with the following:
Clear thinking guided by a willingness to change will make truth apparent, of which we here have noted a practical example. Thank you for your faithful work, Bro. Mills.
Rich, our baptismal practice in inseparable from our theology of salvation. The Philippian jailer asked, “What must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” It is not possible for an infant to believe.
Paul taught that we are baptized into Christ’s death. “Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.” The imagery of dying to self, being buried with Christ through baptism, is seen in baptism by immersion rather than in baptism by sprinkling.
Doug, you have failed to provide one single express prohibition or command for infant baptism. You take Paul’s words to the Philippians jailer and apply them to every Christian everywhere and at all times. The ten commandments do not speak to the point of infant baptism as they do not, according to you, speak to the point of ordaining men only to the gospel ministry. You seem to be self-conflicted on this point.
No, I am not self-conflicted on this point at all, Rich. I am 100% opposed to infant baptism. Salvation is by grace through faith. An infant cannot have faith in the blood of Christ. Seventh-day Adventists dedicate infants and baptize children who believe in Jesus and in the doctrines of the church.
Of course I apply Paul’s words to the Philippian jailer everywhere and in all times!
Thanks for your reply, Phil. Just to clarify, I did not say I was personally struggling with “what is adding” and “what is not adding.” I said I was struggling to understand how you decide the difference.
I accept the principle you stated as an essential basic of hermeneutics, based on Jn 7:17. It sounds like you are saying you automatically know, for example, that handshaking is OK even if the Bible doesn’t command it–based on the fact that you will to do God’s will. But what about people who differ with you on the meaning of a text or on the ethics of a specific practice? Are they not “willing to do God’s will?”
Doug, one of the important reasons we must avoid the wine of Babylon is to be able to distinguish between the common and the sacred (Lev 10:9,10), between the word of God and the word of man.
Recently I saw an ophthalmologist. During my examination he showed me differing size letters and numbers. The physician used this to determine the amount of visual correction that I needed.
One of the tests for spiritual vision is the ability to distinguish the sacred and the common, the word of God and the word of man. Where I can’t reliably make such a distinction, I need spiritual correction (or less imbibing in Babylonian wine).
As we both know, when an individual can’t distinguish between a handshake and ordination to the gospel ministry there is a serious spiritual visual disturbance. We would both try to help them at a more basic level.
My former pastor uses the same “logic” that Doug presents, that if something isn’t specifically condemned or mandated in the scriptures then why not do it.That seems a dangerous road to me. We could fill in to that equation smoking, illegal substance use and any number of things “not specifically condemned or mandated”, but is our motive to surrender our will and to know God’s will and to glorify Him or to glorify self at God’s expense? Humility is not touted as a value to be aspired to in the world today as much as reaching to the heights of self acheivement and applause. I love my fellow believers on each side of this polarizing issue and pray that we will each follow Solomon’s counsel in Prov.3:5,6. Maranatha!
that for each of us we’ll humbly and
Stephen, our mission is to glorify God, not self. The reason we do not smoke is because we see in Scripture the principle of healthful living and modern medical science has discovered that smoking causes cancer. On top of that, of course, we have specific counsel in the Spirit of Prophecy that smoking tobacco kills.
Phil, I have no interest in drinking the wine of Babylon. It is interesting: your comparison between a handshake and ordination. The NT actually commands us to greet one another with a holy kiss more times (five) than it commands us to “ordain” elders.
This issue is just satans tool to split the church, we feel so wrapped up in our own knowledge and our need to be right. Then we argue it to the death.. If ever I get asked what I think about this issue or the trinity or any of these modern day side issues . I have no comment and I dont need to be right. I look forward to that day on the sea of glass where I can share my thoughts and questions with the only one that matters Jesus Christ himself. What seems really obvious is the more we feel we know our Bibles the more we feel the right to be right!
“Those who study the Bible simply to find texts to prove their theory or vindicate their opinion, will not be enlightened by the Spirit of God. Not through controversy and discussion is the soul enlightened. We must look and live. We must search the scriptures in order to receive life for the soul” (WM Herald 10/26/1904).
Excellent point Phil! And a good example is 1 Tim 2:11-15. Many Adventists with strong patriarchal values have tried to use that passage to prove Paul prohibited women from service as elders and pastors.
A close look, however, shows us that Paul was concerned about the souls of those who had been deceived by false teachers in Ephesus who were forbidding marriage (1 Tim 4:3). 2:15 is therefore the key to understanding the passage. Notice how Paul focuses on the salvation of souls, “Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
There are two factors that link 1 Tim 2:11-15 with 1 Tim 5:11-15—Satan’s deceptions and childbearing. In Ch. 5 Paul writes, “So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to revile us. For some have already turned away to follow Satan” (vss. 14-15).
1 Tim 2:14 mentions Eve being deceived by Satan; it points us to 1 Tim 5:14-15, which twice mentions Satan deceiving women in Ephesus. Secondly, both passages mention childbearing. When 2:15 says, “She will be saved through childbearing,” it points us to 5:14 where Paul urges the younger widows to marry and bear children.
These two links between 2:11-15 and 5:11-15 teach us Paul’s purpose in 2:11-15 is the salvation of women who had been deceived—and not to ban women from ever being ordained as elders and pastors.
The lesson for us today: false teaching should be nipped in the bud. Those who have been deceived should not be allowed to dominate (authentein, 2:12) our churches either by their public teaching or in any other way because it is our primary work to save souls.
Doug, from whence do Adventists derive their “strong patriarchal values”? Not from Western culture, not from any of its secular institutions. The viewpoint of most Adventists concerning male and female roles is rooted in values transmitted to us through the Word. Your interpretation of 2:11-15 is erroneous. Paul certainly is concerned with salvation and this is why he is giving instruction about how the churches are to operate throughout the epistle. The statements in 11-15 are general rather than limited to Ephesus. Paul never so limits them here. The counsel is true for all times and places. Males should pray for those in authority wherever they are in place or flow of time (2:1, 2, 8). Women are to dress modestly and in church receive instruction rather than give it in the congregational setting. The command is universal, not Ephesus-limited: “I do not allow a woman to exercise authority over a man” (2:12). The reason given is not limited to Ephesus or even Greco-Roman or Judaic culture in general, but is transcendent. Paul reasons from Genesis two, before even the Fall. Doubtless Ephesus did suffer from false teaching at various times (as 4:15 confirms). But 4:3 does not confirm that there were teachers in the Ephesus church forbidding marriage. The letter to Timothy is written in the genre of a general epistle, to benefit believing readers through all ages. It is not a narrowly focused letter limited solely to Timothy and Ephesus but contains numerous general directives (e.g. 2:1, 8; 3:1, 814, 15; 4:11; 6:1). You, and others, are speculating when you limit these general and universal counsels to alleged, local-to-Ephesus problems only. You are going beyond the text and the result has the effect of stripping away the authority of these passages.
Well stated, Larry, and thank you for this intelligent reminder to those of us who once wondered (intelligently) if Paul’s instructions in First Timothy were in some way culturally conditioned and thereby devoid of transcultural authority.
Hi Larry, I have to agree with much of your response, as you will see.
First, I have to clarify the expression, “strong patriarchal values.” I agree Scripture values the husband being the head of the wife, which is certainly a patriarchal value. However, I am thinking of even “stronger” patriarchal values, which suggest that women, even though they are created in the image of God, are simply not gifted as leaders and should not lead organizations, including churches. Those stronger patriarchal values, I suggest, come from human cultural assumptions that go beyond Scripture. We find those “stronger” patriarchal values today in sections of the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, Asia, and in pockets of North America, Europe, and Australia. In some places those “values” have been taken to such an extreme that women are being physically and emotionally abused.
Most Adventists accept the biblical teaching that the husband is head of the wife, but far fewer believe women are neither able to nor called to lead human groups outside of the home. Paul urged women in Ephesus to “manage their households” (1 Tim 5:14). I strongly value the unique contributions that women bring to leadership, which nicely complement those made by men (see Gen 1:26-28).
I agree the statements in 1 Tim 2:11-15 are not limited to Ephesus. None of the stories in the Bible are limited to their original time and place. “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11; NIV).
Of course this principle includes v. 12, where Paul states he does not allow women to “authentein” or dominate the men of the church. It was never God’s plan for women to dominate men or for men to | 300 limit
Doug, I find your affirmations very interesting with their many statements that the counsel of Paul is “not limited to Ephesus” and that “ None of the stories in the Bible are limited to their original time and place,” etc. I do not doubt that this reflects your honest self-understanding.
At the same time, I have learned to be careful about self-reported virtue and opinion. The real test today is not what any person says, or a list of things that one affirms, but it is what a person actually does, insofar as it may be accurately determined.
I think of the many claims of pro-women’s ordination people that they uphold the 1986 Methods of Bible Study Document, but who then pass on, more often than not explaining away the Pauline passages standing in their way. The one positive point I find with the 2013 NAD BRC Report to TOSC is that in that document the NAD openly admitted that their new PBHC hermeneutic was necessary to successfully cross the Biblical chasm to make a they-hope-can-be-persuasive “Bible” case for women’s ordination. This was an encouraging moment of honesty.
However, what I see in the cases of many are affirmations followed by subtle negation. The pattern of many has been to affirm the disputed passages only to turn around and suggest Paul was working on merely local issues. And so, in 1 Tim 2 Paul was addressing only a specific problem at Ephesus, and in 1 Cor 11 and 14 he was addressing a problem that was strictly localized to the Corinthian church, and so on. Since the counsel is assigned as being only local, the prohibitions are then assigned s being only local. Then the claim that the counsel is “not limited” rings hollow.
Yes, I agree with your “Trust, but Verify” approach. I have seen some “conservative” proponents of WO suggest that “I permit no woman to teach or to “usurp authority over the man” (KJV); “domineer over man” (NEB); “dictate to the men” (Revised English Bible)—-is simply Paul’s personal opinion because he uses the pronoun, “I,” here and cannot be considered to be an inspired writing!
However, that said, I personally find that the MBSD works just fine for me! I hope you saw that in my brief exegesis of 1 Tim 2:11-15, and comparing that with 1 Timothy 5—in my post above. I pointed this out to one of the members of the NAD Committee, by the way, and he had to agree that the MBSD actually could do the job without any reference to any PBHC,
Doug, I believe you are mistakenly linking physical abuse with what you call patriarchal values. There is nothing patriarchal about bullying or the use of physical violence. I am aware of no credible evidence that those who are violent to others, including women, execute such violence as part of some intentionally chosen or developed philosophical code or viewpoint. Engagement in violence unintentionally chosen is even less likely to stem from some kind of identifiable “patriarchal” viewpoint. Since you seem to be drawing a conclusion on this line, the burden of evidence is upon you. Likewise, I don’t know how one would persuasively link “emotional abuse” with “patriarchal values.” Emotional abuse unfortunately is perpetrated by males and females.
The issue at hand is not women leading human groups outside the home; it involves whether there is inspired prohibition of women leading mixed-(male and female) Christian groups in congregational settings. I don’t know of any Adventist who is suggesting that women cannot lead various human groups, or even that women cannot lead some kinds of groups in the church. Perhaps you can name one or more such Adventist persons I have missed?
On Gr. AUTHENTEO, its basic meaning is “authority over.” Scott Baldwin’s 1995 study of the verb found 82 occurrences of the word in ancient writings. Only one example, from Chrysostom about A.D. 390, uses the word in a negative sense. Even that is more than 300 years later than Paul’s usage and it is dubious scholarship to apply such a meaning to 2:12 when all you have to back it up is 1 case in 82, and that, three centuries removed. We would have to see substantial support for such a translation before just arbitrarily adopting such a meaning. On your view of local vs. universal, another post…
Larry, I agree that “wife-beating” may spring from general meanness rather than any patriarchal agenda. On the other hand, there may be a connection between “patriarchal values and violence. It is the father who often administers corporal punishment to children in the home. In some societies women come under the rule of extremely patriarchal husbands who believe it is their duty to punish their wife as if she were a child. We cannot say, therefore, that there is always a link between patriarchal values and abuse, nor can we say there is never a link.
I agree the issue involves whether there is inspired prohibition of women leading out in congregational settings. Part of the problem with the opposition to WO is that leaders have not agreed on what exactly women can and cannot do under the banner of their male headship ideology. I have encountered a wide variety of views in during the last 35 years that I have been studying this issue.
Larry, on the Greek word, AUTHENTEO, scholars differ. Leland Wilshire has published (2010) his comprehensive study of the use of this word in all Greek literature over a 400 year period from 200 BC to 200 AD. His research was based on Thesaurus Linguae Graeca, an online database. He found a range of meaning that extended from simply “authority” to violence. The verb was applied to “supporters of violent actions,” “author of crimes,” one seeking “sole power,” “perpetrator of evil,” and “murderer,” for example. (See Leland Wilshire, Insight into Two Biblical Passages: Anatomy of a Prohibition 1 Timothy 2:12, the TLG Computer, and the Christian Church; University Press of America, 2010).
Like many words, AUTHENTEO, can have different meanings. Therefore, we need to focus on internal Scriptural evidence. The fact that Paul used this “hapex legomena” only once in all of his writings is significant. He used the normal word for authority, EXHOUSIA, many times: See, especially 1 Cor 7:4; 2 Cor 10:8; 13:10. Why would he use this unusual word, when he could have used the normal word, EXHOUSIA, which refers to legitimate authority? The context suggests the women in Ephesus were domineering, trying to control the menfolk with their false teaching.
Leland Wilshire is part of the United Church of Christ, long a very liberal denomination. The UCC ordained its first woman clergyperson in 1853. The church aligned as favoring “civil rights” for homosexuals in 1969, ordained its first openly-gay clergy in 1972, advertise themselves as “open and affirming” (http://www.ucc.org/lgbt_ona), and approved the “blessing” of same-sex “marriage” a decade ago. In 2014 they sued the state of North Carolina over its prohibiting same-sex “marriage.” In recent years, the denomination has declined from 2 million to 1.3 million members.
By no means is this the whole story, but it is a piece of context. I have ordered a copy of Wilshire’s book and will comment further after considering his claims. However, I did read some copy from his book online and it claimed that a whole system of theology opposing women had been erected based upon a mistranslation of authenteo at 1 Timothy 2:12. If that is true, then it would mean that God permitted the church to teach wrongly on this topic for almost 2,000 years and that fortunately, the United Church of Christ was among the the first to make correction!
As we know, there are several texts involved in the question, including in 1 Cor 11 and 14, 1 Tim 3, and Titus. Wilshire will also have to deal with other points in 1 Tim 2:12. Authenteo is not the only verb in 1 Tim 2:12. In parallel with authenteo in its infinitive form (authentein), we also have didaskein, “To teach.” None claim negative connotation for didaskw. However, I will address Wilshire’s claims further after and not before I have read his book. As far as I know, Wilshire does not provide even one example in NT times of authenteo bearing a negative meaning.
Of course Adventists will not agree with all of the beliefs of folk who have published in the area of women in the church. Some have critiqued Wilshire’s research because he included cognate words along with AUTHENTEO. Whether one agrees with Wilshire’s findings or not, the word did appear to have a range of meanings which included the idea of domineering behavior. Wilshire concluded that the word might best be translated: “to instigate violence,” which, of course, I cannot agree with. It will be interesting to see what you come up with.
The problematic aspect is simply the fact that it was used only once in Scripture. It is difficult to base a doctrine on a hapax legomena. There is always the possibility the biblical writer used the word in a different way than thy way it was used in the Greek literature, something we can more readily observe with common words like agape.
The question remains: why would Paul use this unusual word here if was referring simply to the ordinary authority of church leaders, such as that mentioned in Hebrews 13:17?
“The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty” (DA 253).
“History is repeating. With the open Bible before them, and professing to reverence its teachings, many of the religious leaders of our time are destroying faith in it as the word of God. They busy themselves with dissecting the word, and set their own opinions above its plainest statements. In their hands God’s word loses its regenerating power. This is why infidelity runs riot, and iniquity is rife” (DA 258).
“As these could not maintain their position by the Scriptures, they were driven to resort to the sayings and doctrines of men” (GC 335).
In the days of Christ the leaders and teachers of Israel were powerless to resist the work of Satan. They were neglecting the only means by which they could have withstood evil spirits. It was by the word of God that Christ overcame the wicked one. The leaders of Israel professed to be the expositors of God’s word, but they had studied it only to sustain their traditions, and enforce their man-made observances. By their interpretation they made it express sentiments that God had never given. Their mystical construction made indistinct that which He had made plain. They disputed over insignificant technicalities, and practically denied the most essential truths. Thus infidelity was sown broadcast. God’s word was robbed of its power, and evil spirits worked their will” (DA 257).
I believe the Bible is inspired by God and I believe the writings of Ellen White are inspired by God, but I do not believe decisions to apply SOP statements to issues that she herself did not apply them to—are inspired in the same way.
Women’s ordination is just the tip of the iceburg something to keep in focus as the emergent church is hiding from full view. Strong Godly non-ordained women like Carol Geissinger and Lois Kinds actions won’t be forgotten…. Men need to wake up to their God given role and place a firm hand back on spiritual reins of family and church.
Christ, the head of the church, has a firm hand on the reins of the church.
Ephesians 5:22
Book – Pastoral Ministry (1995)
13: Women as Soulwinners
If women do the work that is not the most agreeable to many of those who labor in word and doctrine, and if their works testify that they are accomplishing a work that has been manifestly neglected, should not such labor be looked upon as being as rich in results as the work of the ordained ministers? Should it not command the hire of the laborers? Would not such workers be defrauded if they were not paid? This question is not for men to settle. The Lord has settled it. You are to do your duty to the women who labor in the gospel, whose work testifies that they are essential to carry the truth into families. 5MR 324, 325. {PaM 78.3}
The minister is paid for his work, and this is well. And if the Lord gives the wife as well as the husband the burden of labor, and she devotes her time and strength to visiting from family to family and opening the Scriptures to them, although the hands of ordination have not been laid upon her, she is accomplishing a work that is in the line of ministry. Then should her labors be counted as naught?–GW 452. {PaM 79.1}
Victor if you read all of EGW writings it is clear that she states husbands roles are to be spiritual leaders of the home and church. You brought out a quote where she mentions wife’s teaming up with their husbands. She is clear that pay should be rendered for ALL who labor. Please show other wise if you have any references.
In 5T page 60 and page 598 she mentions men and women/both sexes then is specific when talking about ministers to be male. The quote which is used by the NAD in the handout ….”men and women to be pastors of the flock of God” is quoted from the contest the work of a literature evangelist not minister.
The success of a minister depends much upon HIS deportment out of the desk. When HE ceases preaching, and leaves the desk, HIS work is not finished; it is only commenced. HE must then carry out what HE has preached. HE should not move heedlessly, but set a watch over HIMSELF…..—Testimonies for the Church 1:380.
In NO way am I demeaning the work that women do in our church. There are quotes where it is stated that they can reach more than the minister can, I have seen this in action by many Godly women. The roles God gave at creation were to keep families in tact and were set in place for a reason. If men were to honestly be the Spiritual leaders in the home (true house bands) this issue would not come up in our church…..
Doug Matacio says,
You reject the idea of male only ordination on the claim that there is no direct command or prohibition for, or against, it. Yet, you simultaneously claim that infant baptism is impermissible, while failing to produce a single explicit command for, or against, it. Please produce an explicit command for or against, infant baptism that you expect from anti wo-ists if you would show your argument for women’s ordination to be cogently harmonious.
Do you think that the example of Jesus in choosing male ministers to ordain, in the light of all male OT ministers and all male NT ministers, with Paul’s explicit references to creation in the context of ruling one’s house, the husband of one wife, as simply applying to their culture because there is no explicit prohibition or command against or for all male ministers, like the culture of eating bread which can be translated into eating of rice today, while still hoping to defend the rite of adult baptism and be seen as non-conflicted?
Nah, Rich, I think we should still use unleavened bread instead of rice for communion. 🙂 Boy, that last sentence was really long. What I really wish is if you would stop treating me as if I am not on your team! We Adventists need to stick together; we all have a lot more in common with each other than we have with Catholics, other Protestants, Muslims, and Jews.
Doug,
Hopefully you are not still attempting to defend adult baptism on the same grounds you presume to reject the ordination of men to gospel ministry — absence of explicit prohibitions or injunctions. That would be attempting an impossibility.
Hopefully we can press together and recognize that our team has decided twice not to approve of women’s ordination. So let’s play by the rules and encourage others to do the same until we come to another vote in San Antonio, “after a prayerful study of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy . . .”
Do you believe that the example of Jesus in choosing male ministers to ordain, His injunctions of all-male OT and NT church leaders, and Paul’s explicit references to creation in the context of creation, ruling one’s house, and husband of one wife is as cultural as bread because there is no explicit prohibition or command against or for all male ministers?
“Then you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.
10 “Bring the bull to the front of the tent of meeting, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head. 11 Slaughter it in the Lord’s presence at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 12 Take some of the bull’s blood and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger, and pour out the rest of it at the base of the altar. 13 Then take all the fat on the internal organs, the long lobe of the liver, and both kidneys with the fat on them, and burn them on the altar. 14 But burn the bull’s flesh and its hide and its intestines outside the camp. It is a sin offering.[b]
15 “Take one of the rams, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head. 16 Slaughter it and take the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar. 17 Cut the ram into pieces and wash the internal organs and the legs, putting them with the head and the other pieces. 18 Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the Lord, a pleasing aroma, a food offering presented to the Lord.
19 “Take the other ram, and Aaron and his sons shall lay their hands on its head. 20 Slaughter it, take some of its blood and put it on the lobes of the right ears of Aaron and his sons, on the thumbs of their right hands, and on the big toes of their right feet. Then splash blood against the sides of the altar. 21 And take some blood from the altar and some of the anointing oil and sprinkle it on Aaron and his garments | 300 limit
I wondered what the Bible had to say about ordination, so I looked in a commentary. Most of the references referred to Aaron. The above passage is representative of what I found. It made me wonder about adding to and subtracting from the Bible. Should the above reference, found in Exodus 29, be our model for an ordination service?
Acts 6 verse 6 talks about the Apostles laying hand on a group of men (including Stephen), who after in chapter 7, gave an amazing sermon. EGW gave these words about their example….
For years the Lord has been instructing us to choose wise men,-men who are devoted to God,—men who know what the principles of heaven are,-men who have learned what it means to walk with God,—and to place upon them the responsibility of looking after the business affairs connected with our work. This is in accordance with the Bible plan as outlined in the sixth chapter of Acts. We need to study this plan; for it is approved of God. Let us follow the Word.—The Review and Herald, October 5, 1905.
I strongly desagree , it is no biblical teaching ,I thing we have go out of organization SDA and be only us and God .
Phil, thank you very much for this important Sabbath School lesson with many good biblical explains to the issue of adding to gods word.
Two toughts do I have to this issue according woman ordination.
1) Adding to Gods word must not always and in an absolute manner be wrong. For example, all the „addings“ through genuine prophets like Ellen White are all right (about the issue to health, as smoking, to drink coffee etc., or other issues like the word „triune“ God). And Gods Word says nothing about much things, what is good for the missionary work in the manner, what James Withe said about something (for example the bible says nothing about a printing press, but we have to decided, to buy it). And in other cases it must not be wrong to say: the bible says nothing about it. So the asking of A. Rodriguez in this direction must not always be wrong and dangerous. But according to woman ordination in his paper, I see the danger in this sentence like you and the sabbath school class.
2) According to WO we put in reality through this addition to God´s word other words of scripture away.
If Paul says, that an elder „must be a man of one wife“ we do away all masculine words, the word „man“ and the word „wife“ too – and sin against the second warning of God´s word (to put away something).
If we would only change man in woman, we woul have a command for lesbian marriage in the bible („an elder „must be a woman of one wife“). So is WO clearly an forbidden Addition and a doing away from God´s word too.
I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
The testimony of Jesus is never an addition to God’s word. It is a magnification of it (Isa 42:21). It does not add what is not there, it clarifies it so we can see clearly what is actually contained in the word and in the law of God.
For example, anything that shortens life is murder and thus included in the commandment not to kill—thus every way to murder included implicitly. That is why David sang, “Thy commandment is exceeding broad” (Ps 119:96).
Adding to the word is simply another name for perverting, twisting, distorting, or falsifying God’s word.
Jesus did not choose woman (even one) to include in his 12 disciples.
Did God ever choose a woman for priest?
We may not need to change the way God (Jesus) did.
(Excuse me my broken English)