OPEN LETTER to AnGEL Rodriquez

Executive Overview

Points of Agreement and Contributions Made

Agreement 1: We agree this is not about personalities or character, this is about the validity and strength of biblical arguments.
Agreement 2: We agree that the method of biblical interpretation used by the groups is a problem.
Key Contribution 1: Your paper makes it clear that the pro-women’s ordination has a new and different method of biblical interpretation.
Contribution 2: Your paper highlights a common error used in biblical interpretation by mis- taking God’s silence for God’s approval.
Contribution 3: Your paper gives a specious definition of balance which would actually make your own paper unbalanced.
Key contribution 4: Your paper illustrates why inspired sources must never be altered.
Agreement 3: We agree that context is crucial.
Contribution 5: By taking inspired quotes out of context, your paper effectively highlights

how context alters meaning.

Agreement 4: Our purpose for Bible study makes a difference.

Contribution 6: Your summary of the first section on hermeneutics virtually nullifies the re-

mainder of your paper, since it suggests you are not taking the pro-biblical qualification ar- guments seriously, dismissing them as mere attempts to prove a point instead of efforts to keep our church from drifting from long-established Bible truth.

The letter concludes with a brief summary of my concerns.

Dear Angel, March 3, 2014

I was blessed by the time I spent with you at the recent TOSC, when we sat together for break- fast. I enjoyed hearing your conversion story, and seeing your commitment to the Sabbath. It was instructive to learn how you and your wife worked through a difference in understanding of proper Sabbath observance without it dividing your home. I recognized we share a common de- sire to understand and follow truth, wherever it may lead.

I listened closely to your presentation and appreciated the spirit of your introductory remarks in your 76-page paper, “Evaluation of the Arguments Used by Those Who Oppose the Ordination of Women to the Ministry.” Though I cannot fully agree with all your conclusions, I heartily agree with your opening emphasis that we are dealing only with arguments, not personalities. We are friends, fellow believers, one in the blood of Jesus. It is in this spirit that I make the following remarks. Where possible it is my attempt to build on those areas where we can agree.

The method of Bible interpretation is at “the heart of our discussion”

I am in complete agreement with your insight that the method we use to interpret the Bible “is at the heart of our discussion” (p. 2). The Bible is our source of unity and nothing but the Bible can unite God’s people. When “God is leading a people ... they will not be at variance, one believing one thing, and another having faith and views entirely opposite” (EW 68).

The point you make is an important one. There is only one Leader; we need to get His orders straight. We don’t give the orders, we follow His orders.1 His orders are given in the Bible. How effective can an army be that argues over the orders from its general? By our disagreement we are actually declaring to the world that our General can’t write clear orders. Is He being untruth- ful when He says His orders are plain and perfectly understandable for those willing to follow them (John 7:17; Dan 12:10)? Would Christ give orders that divide and weaken His own army? Did Christ mean for His orders to be a source of conflict? Or did He give them to unite us in a common mission? Something is seriously wrong when the Bible is dividing friends instead of uniting them.

1 “The study of the Scriptures will be considered a part of his religion; for by this he learns his orders. In the light of the Scriptures he regards himself as God’s servant, employed to do His will. Sometimes he finds those orders different to that which he would choose were the decision left to him; but he does not find fault with his work because of this. And as he seeks to carry out the will of the Master, angels of God are with him, to be his defense against the wiles of Satan” (ST 2/24/1909).

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page 3

How can two groups, both professing to take the Bible as their standard rule of faith and practice, come to diametrically opposite views on such a basic issue as the biblical qualifications for ordi- nation? We agree that these groups must be interpreting the Bible differently. The method of Bible interpretation is indeed “at the heart” of the problem. This should lead each group into a time of self-examination to see what cherished sin is blocking us from properly understanding God’s word. Rightly understood, the Bible does not teach contradictory doctrines. While it is possible that the method of Bible interpretation used by both groups is flawed, it is not possible f!or both of them to be right.2

N!ew and Different Method of Bible Interpretation

The early church had no division over their interpretation of the Bible regarding church leader- ship. They were “in one accord” when Matthias was selected for a leadership position. The pio- neers had no division over their biblical interpretation regarding ordination.3 Since those holding the pro-biblical qualifications view use the same method of Bible study and interpretation as the pioneers,4 those holding the pro-women’s ordination view must employ a new and different method of biblical interpretation. Your paper makes an important contribution by

highlighting the fact that there is a difference between the method of Bible interpretation used by those who agree with the Bible’s emphasis that all should be engaged in ministry (the pioneers’ pro-biblical qualifications view), and the new and different method of Bible interpretation devel- oped by those whose actions imply the very thing their words deny, that unordained ministry is somehow inferior and women must be ordained to truly engage in ministry (remarkably, the pro- w!omen’s ordination view with this evident class distinction is sometimes called egalitarian!).

It is only right that the “new” and different method of Bible interpretation which is advocated in your paper be given close scrutiny and thorough investigation. This places a heavy burden of proof on my pro-women’s ordination friends who are promoting their “new” and different method for Bible interpretation that actually casts aside “the established faith of the body” and

2 “The word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judg- ment of the church, neither is he allowed to urge his opinions against the opinions of the church. If there were no church discipline and government, the church would go to fragments; it could not hold together as a body. There have ever been individuals of independent minds who have claimed that they were right, that God had especially taught, impressed, and led them. Each has a theory of his own, views peculiar to himself, and each claims that his views are in accordance with the word of God. Each one has a different theory and faith, yet each claims special light from God. These draw away from the body, and each one is a separate church of himself. All these cannot be right, yet they all claim to be led of the Lord. The word of Inspiration is not Yea and Nay, but Yea and Amen in Christ Jesus” (3T 428).

3 “The majority of the Sabbatarian adventists (sic) seem to have settled fairly quickly on what ordination signified; and their views remained remarkably consistent, from the embryonic days of the 1850s until denominational organization became well established,” David Trim, “Ordination in Seventh–Day Adven- tist History,” p. 9, TOSC, January, 2013.

4 The historical-grammatical method.

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page !4

threatens the church with schism.5 “Light and darkness cannot harmonize. Between truth and er- ror there is an irrepressible conflict. To uphold and defend the one is to attack and overthrow the other” (GC 126). Isn’t it prudent to say, “Proceed with caution” when a view is advanced that is occasionally portrayed by some supporters as more correct than the ordination practices of C!hrist, Paul, and our pioneers?

A! Common Error in Bible Interpretation

It is a common error to mistake God’s silence as indicating His affirmation. “These things you have done, and I kept silent; you thought that I was altogether like you” (Ps 50:21). Certainly Jesus’ silence during His mock trial did not indicate His approval (Mk 14:60; 15:6), rather it was the greatest rebuke He could give (DA 729). To avoid this mistake in Bible interpretation, we have been instructed “to demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’” (GC 595), so it is not reassuring to have the NAD TOSC report begin its recommendations with “The Bible does not directly ad- dress the ordination of women.”6 This is employing a method of biblical interpretation that Jesus did not use. He said, “It is written”7 never “It is not written.” He asked, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (Luke 10:26, ESV) not “What is not written in the law? What can y!ou read into it?”8

You have stated, “There is not a divine command in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or in the writings of Ellen White against ordaining women to the gospel ministry. Neither is there an explicit command not (sic) to ordain them” (p. 75). But this, like the confession of Achan, is simply acknowledging that which cannot be denied. And it is the same line of reasoning used by my Sunday keeping friends: There is no command in the Bible “Keep Sunday holy!” or “Do not keep Sunday holy!” However, the gospel commission does not direct us to go into all the world and teach whatever is not forbidden. It tells us to go into all the world and teach what has been commanded (Matt 28:20). Since women’s ordination is not commanded, it forms no part of the message we are to carry to the world and thus has no business being taught in seminaries and c!olleges that train Adventist pastors. Neither does it have any place in our publications.

It may be said, “Women’s ordination is like arguments over the 144,000, the ten horns, or the daily and is not an important point.” But if it doesn’t matter, why spend 76 pages advocating it? I!f it does matter, why didn’t God command it?

E!xamining Claims

5 “All should be careful about presenting new views of Scripture before they have given these points thorough study, and are fully prepared to sustain them from the Bible. Introduce nothing that will cause dissension, without clear evidence that in it God is giving a special message for this time” (GW92 126). 6 NAD TOSC Report Summary, Recommendation 1.

7 Some years ago I found the term “it is written” or its equivalent 72 times in a phrase search in the gospels.
8 It is instructive to observe how Ellen White used the silence of the Scriptures to draw positive conclu- sions. For example, she says, “I cannot find an instance in the life of Christ where He devoted time to play and amusement” (CT309) and uses this to show that we should not be promoting this.

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page !5

During your years at BRI, how many times did you have to deal with groups claiming to have “new” light. And how many times have you seen them quote Ellen White regarding the impor- tance of not rejecting advancing light? Unfortunately, under scrutiny nearly all so-called “new” light is found to be old error repackaged. There is a reason the wise man advised, “Do not as- s!ociate with those who are given to change” (Pro 24:21, NASB).

Both the Old and New Testament warn of departures from the faith (Deut 32:15; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 4:1).9 Members of God’s remnant church are not immune from such danger (Heb
3:12). The method of interpreting the Bible used by the early church and the pioneers brought church unity.10 From its early history, the Adventist Church was unified on the subject of ordina- tion until relatively recent times.11 Undoubtedly you have seen the problem when “a man takes his views of Bible truth without regard to the opinion of his brethren, and justifies his course, al- leging that he has a right to his own peculiar views, and then presses them upon others” (CET 201). This causes schism. I have no doubt that you have had to deal with such problems many times; this is one of the great reasons the BRI exists. Since we neither want to reject light nor ac- cept error,12 we investigate claims of “new” truth. In this investigation we use the tool of a com- m!on method to interpret the Bible.

Are we departing from the uniting method of biblical interpretation of the early church and our pioneers? This can only delight our enemies who can then say, “The Adventists are divided and t!hus cannot be Christ’s disciples, since the truth unites” (John 17:21;13:35).

H!ow plain truths of the Bible are obscured

God has given us a striking warning that “the truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men” (GC 598). Furthermore, we are to avoid allow- ing the “seeming difficulty” contained in some Bible passage to confuse “the minds of others in r!eference to points that are clear and easy to be understood” (5T 705).

B!alance

9 “The Jews perished as a nation because they were drawn from the truth of the Bible by their rulers, priests, and elders” (GW92 128).
10 “We must study to find out the best way in which to take up the review of our experiences from the be- ginning of our work, when we separated from the churches, and went forward step by step in the light that God gave us. We then took the position that the Bible, and the Bible only, was to be our guide; and we are never to depart from this position. We were given wonderful manifestations of the power of God. Mira- cles were wrought. Again and again, when we were brought into strait places, the power of God was dis- played in our behalf” (CW 145).
11 “The history of ordination in general is largely a history of our early years and of how we established and agreed [on] our understanding of ordination; whereas the history of the place of women’s ordination in Adventism is largely the history of ordination since 1968,” David Trim, “Ordination in Seventh–Day Adventist History,” p. 1, TOSC, January, 2013.
12 “While warning men to beware of accepting anything unless it is truth, we should also warn them not to imperil their souls by rejecting messages of light, but to press out of the darkness by earnest study of the word of God” (GW92 129).

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page !6

We agree that inspired sources should always be used in a balanced way (p. 8). However, your defining lack of balance as “tend[ing] to quote what supports their [the pro-biblical qualifica- tions’] argument” (p. 8) is specious. “Tending to quote what contradicted and undermined one’s own argument” would be foolishness, not balance. Those who humbly accept the Bible implicitly and seek to follow it, form their views from their study of the inspired writings. Their views con- stantly expand as they continue their study and see truths they have missed in their prior study. They study deeply and carefully, comparing Scripture with Scripture until they know “what saith the Lord.” In their presentations they present those passages that most clearly and forcibly con- vey the sense of what they have learned from the entire body of inspired writings. This is not lack of balance; this is the only way to have balance and use inspired sources lawfully, and “we know the law is good if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim 1:8).

Angel, undoubtedly you were not aware of it, but in your presentation and paper you selected a recently and significantly altered quotation of Ellen White from Christ Triumphant13 in place of using Ellen White’s actual wording found in the unpublished manuscript (p. 66, also see your summary statement p. 75).14

For convenience I am including the quotes side by side. I have retained the italicizations you a!dded. I have placed the altered portions in underlined-bold.

As Recently Altered By the White Estate

What Ellen White Actually Wrote

Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men and women who fear God, who realize that they are humans only, not God. They should be people who will rule under God and for Him. Will they give expression to the will of God for His people? Do they allow selfishness to tarnish word and action? Do they, after obtaining the confidence of the people as leaders of wisdom who fear God and keep His commandments, belittle the exalted position that the people of God should occupy in these days of peril? Will they through self-confi- dence become false guideposts, pointing the way to friendship with the world instead of the way to heaven?!

Your Footnote is “Manuscript 163, 1902= CTr 146.”

Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men who fear God, who realize that they are men only, not God. They should be men who rule under God and for Him. Will they give expression to the will of God for His people? Do they allow selfishness to tarnish word and action? Do they, after obtaining the confidence of the people

as men of wisdom, who fear God and keep His commandments, belittle the exalted position that the people of God should occupy in these days of! peril? Will they through self-confidence become false guide-posts, pointing the way to friendship with the world instead of the weay to heaven? (Unpublished Ms 163, 1902),

After condemning the tendency “to quote what supports their argument,” it is particularly ironic that you utilized this inaccurate quotation. Would you have used the unaltered quotation for your argument? I don’t think so. Does the original Manuscript 163, 1902 really equal Christ Tri- umphant? No. This altered document is a very serious misrepresentation of Ellen White’s words. Though these additions were made with the best of intentions and approved by the trustees of the

13 A general acknowledgement of this is made in the Preface of this book as well as To Be Like Jesus and From the Heart, the three most recent devotionals produced by the White Estate.
14 This is an unpublished manuscript and not on the CD-ROM. The portion included in Christ Tri- umphant, is the only version found in the CD-ROM and, unfortunately, it is in the altered form.

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page !7

White Estate, they appear to violate a prohibition of God, “Do not add to His words, lest He re- buke you, and you be found a liar” (Pro 30:6). Your paper has done the world church a service by exposing the danger when such changes are made. Hopefully, the practice will be stopped and the alterations in these otherwise fine books be removed.

Sources for our method of biblical interpretation

Your assertion that a concern about the importance and source of one’s method of biblical inter- pretation is somehow a diatribe (p. 8) is itself a diatribe. “You then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?” (Rom 2:21, ESV). This ad hominem attack could raise questions about the gen- uineness of the paper’s introductory graciousness.

Context

You have made an astute observation by zeroing in on the fact that the major difference between the method both groups use in Bible interpretation is in “the proper use of the context” (pp. 4,9). Your point needs emphasis because taking passages out of context is the foundation for false doctrine and is how false doctrines and unbiblical practices enter the church. “In order to sustain erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices, some will seize upon passages of Scripture separat- ed from the context” (GC 521). Illustrating how this can be done Ellen White wrote: “A few words of Scripture are separated from the context ... and used in proof of doctrines that have no foundation in the word of God” (GC 539).15

Perhaps an example of this would help: “There is neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28) are “a few words of Scripture” which can be “separated from the context” “and used in proof of Bible” sup- port for ordaining women as overseers or even gay marriage, but would be “doctrines that have no foundation in the Word of God.”16

Your paper provides many examples of quotations lifted out of their context. For example, im- mediately after seriously misquoting an unpublished Ellen White manuscript (p. 66), you quote a Spirit of Prophecy excerpt without providing the context: “When women are wanted with well- balanced minds, with not a cheap style of education, but with an education fitting them for any position of trust, they are not easily found” (p. 67). Let’s look at the context of this quotation and examine how Ellen White uses the term “any position of trust.” The title of the Review17 article is “Proper Education of the Young.” The first paragraph of the article gives us the context, “Minis- terial labor cannot and should not be intrusted to boys, neither should the work of giving Bible readings be intrusted to inexperienced girls, because they offer their services, and are willing to take responsible positions, but who are wanting in religious experience, without a thorough edu- cation and training” (RH 6/21/1887). Elsewhere Ellen White explains what she means by the ex-

15 Emphasis supplied.
16 “All should become familiar with God's Word; because Satan perverts and misquotes Scripture, and men follow his example by presenting part of God's Word to those whom they wish to lead in false paths, withholding the part that would spoil their plans. All have the privilege of becoming acquainted with a plain “Thus saith the Lord’” (ST 4/4/1900).
17 Officially The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald.

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page !8

pression, “any position of trust.” “Faithful, earnest, and frequent prayer should be offered that these children may be fitted for any position of trust to which God shall call them” (ST 6/9/1881).18

Context, as used by the Spirit of Prophecy and those holding the pro-biblical qualifications view, means the context given in the inspired writings themselves. It is from the riches of the Bible it- self that all understanding of the Bible must be drawn. When studying a verse or passage of Scripture we begin by looking at the immediate context to make certain our interpretation is con- sistent with the surrounding verses. It continues as we examine the passage more deeply, com- paring Scripture with Scripture, making certain the interpretation is in harmony with every other biblical passage on this topic that we can locate (GC 320).

Our great need is to know the Bible.19 “The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives under- standing to the simple” (Ps 119:130). Jesus is our example. “The Scriptures of the Old Testament were His constant study, and the words, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ were ever upon His lips” (DA 84). Even as a young person he was urged to accept false doctrines commonly accepted by the Jews, and taught by the Jewish scholars, but “He asked for their authority in Holy Writ. He would hear every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; but He could not obey the inventions of men. Jesus seemed to know the Scriptures from beginning to end, and He presented them in their true import” (DA 85).

Obedience, the key the properly understanding the Bible

“Disobedience has closed the door to a vast amount of knowledge that might have been gained from the Scriptures. Understanding means obedience.... They can be understood only by those who are humbly seeking for a knowledge of the truth that they may obey it” (COL 112). Jesus understood whom to ordain because He was obedient. The early church understood whom to or- dain because they were obedient. Paul understood the qualification for selecting overseers be- cause he was obedient. As we obey, we too can understand (John 7:17).

Purpose, an important part of understanding the Bible

Your summary of the section on the methods of biblical interpretation (p. 9) implies an important point— biblical interpretation always involves our purpose in Bible study as part of the method. In most of my college science and math classes, the textbook would provide an answer key that would give the correct answer to be reached, though not the process to reach the answer. The process was more important than the answer. When I was stumped, I would look up the answer in the answer key, then work backward trying to discover how to arrive at the answer and thus solve the problem. This was the purpose of Bible study used by both Jewish rabbis and medieval papists.20 The rabbis “knew” their answer was right; the papists “knew” the pope was right; since

18 Emphasis supplied.
19 “Our salvation depends on a knowledge of the truth contained in the Scriptures” (COL 111).
20 “We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the pa- pists, that certain individuals are the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men ... must accept the explanations given by the Fathers of the church” (GW92 125).

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page !9

they were confident of the answer, their method of Bible interpretation was to reason back until they could “prove” their position from the Bible, rejecting every contradictory view in the process. By contrast the consistent Adventist purpose of Bible study is to humbly go to the Bible t!o learn what you should believe, not go to the Bible to confirm what you already believe.21

Your summary of this section, however, virtually nullifies your entire paper by dealing with what it should not—motives, and omitting what it should have at its core—methods. Your section summary moves the focus from the argument to the character of those making the argument, the very thing you condemn both in the introduction of the paper and in the immediately preceding paragraph.22 Speaking of those who are pro-biblical qualifications advocates, the paper asserts the main problem with their method of Bible interpretation “is to a large extent their desire to prove their point and to undermine the arguments of those who support the ordination of women t!o the ministry.”

First, this is pure speculation since only God can read the mind and know the desires of the heart (1 Kings 8:39). With the warning that “earnest zeal” and “intense desire to have others see and understand the truth” will be misinterpreted (5T 520), how can you be sure your surmising is not a misinterpretation of just such earnest zeal? “In commenting upon the ... motives of another, w!ho can be certain of speaking the exact truth?” (MB 68).

Second, this is forbidden speculation (Matt 7:1) and those who make these speculative judgments a!re revealing their own motives (Rom 2:1).

Third, I believe it is a false statement. I know several of the authors of pro-biblical qualifications papers you reference and have observed them modify a viewpoint when shown clear statements f!rom the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy.

Fourth, your summary statement ignores the fact that the pro-biblical qualifications’ historical- grammatical method of biblical interpretation is a continuation of the pioneers’ method of bibli- cal interpretation. James White, editor of The Review, very early wrote an editorial23 and later

21 “We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said” (GW92 125). “You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If convic- tion comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given” (COL 112). “You will never reach the truth if you study the Scriptures to vindicate your own ideas. Leave these at the door, and with a contrite heart go in to hear what the Lord has to say to you. As the humble seeker for truth sits at Christ’s feet, and learns of Him, the word gives him understanding.... Do not read the word in the light of former opinions.... Do not try to make the word fit these opinions. Make your opinions fit the word. Do not allow what you have believed or practiced in the past to control your understanding. Open the eyes of your mind to behold wondrous things out of the law. Find out what is written, and then plant your feet on the eternal Rock” (MYP 260). There are many more such statements, but this is a representative sample. 22 “It leads away from a discussion of the arguments themselves into an evaluation of the character and intentions of those involved in the discussion” (p. 8-9).

23 The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 20, 1853.

Open Letter to Dr. Angel Rodriquez Page !10

published articles written by Elder Joseph B. Frisbee covering the biblical qualifications for ordi- nation.24 Other pioneers, such as Roswell F. Cottrell, who served on The Review editorial com- mittee, seconded these arguments.25 “There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9) and the ar- guments used by the pioneers are similar to arguments your paper dismisses. We should be cau- tious in statements that would also impugn the motives of these pioneers, who being dead, yet speak.

Finally, your summary virtually nullifies the remainder of the paper, since you fail to take the pro-biblical qualification arguments seriously, dismissing them as mere attempts to prove a point instead of efforts to keep our church from drifting from long-established Bible truth.

Summary

Angel, I welcome your response to the observations of this letter. If I have misunderstood your thinking or misstated your position, I would be happy to be corrected. I have been hesitant to send this letter. You are a respected Adventist theologian. God has used your ministry as a great blessing to the church. On numerous occasions God has enabled you to provide wise Biblical counsel that has made a major difference in critical situations. Please consider these comments, not as an attack, but as an appeal. Truth is not advanced if we take inspired writings out of con- text, use ad hominem thrusts, or judge the motives of our friends. Truth requires no new method of biblical interpretation. The Adventist church long ago rejected as invalid the very “contextual- ized” approach the pro-women’s ordination advocates must use and which the NAD report actu- ally now acknowledges. This approach allows the power of man to change God’s word instead of allowing the power of God’s word to change the man.

The Bible compares our actions (including writing and speaking) to the preparation of food. “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat his fellow ser- vants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 24:45-51).

It is my prayer that we will both receive the blessing promised to those who prepare food in due season by accurately presenting present truth as it is in Jesus.

Sincerely,

Phil Mills, MD

24 The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 26, 1854, January 9, 1855, June 19. 1856. 25 The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, October 2 and 9, 1856.

Executive Overview

Response by the Pro-Biblical Qualifications Advocates to Ángel Manuel Rodríguez1

by Phil Mills, John W. Peters, Edwin Reynolds, Ingo Sorke, and Clinton Wahlen

This letter is a friendly look at key areas of agreement between the two views on ordination and the ways your presentation and 76-page paper make some startling and significant contributions to the ordination dialogue.

Points of Agreement and Contributions Made

AGREEMENT 1: We agree this is not about personalities or character, this is about the validity and strength of biblical arguments.

AGREEMENT 2: We agree that the method of biblical interpretation used by the groups is a problem.

Key Contribution: Your paper makes it clear that the pro-women’s ordination has a new and different method of interpretation.

Contribution: Your paper highlights a common error used in biblical interpretation by mistaking God’s silence for God’s approval.

Contribution: Your paper gives a specious definition of balance which would actually make your own paper unbalanced.

Key contribution: Your paper illustrates why inspired sources must never be altered. AGREEMENT 3: We agree that context is crucial.

Contribution: By taking inspired quotes out of context, your paper effectively highlights how context alters meaning.

AGREEMENT 4: Our purpose for Bible study makes a difference.

Contribution: Your summary of the first section on hermeneutics virtually nullifies the remainder of your paper, since it suggests you are not taking the pro-biblical qualification arguments seriously, dismissing them as mere attempts to prove a point instead of efforts to keep our church from drifting from long-established Bible truth.

Foundational Biblical Principles

• Unfortunately, your paper confuses and complicates what Scripture makes plain and simple. More serious still, after abandoning the plain reading of Scripture, your paper spiritualizes the text so that it no longer means what it actually says.

Summary Response to Rodríguez 2

The Son of God, at least since the creation of the first intelligent beings, condescended to function in the submissive role as Commander of the angels (Rev 12:7; cf. Josh 5:13-15) and will continue to be subject to the Father in eternity future (1 Cor 15:28).
Therefore, equality of being and functional submission together constitute the image of God from the standpoint of the created universe and we can be certain that human beings, made in the image of God, were from creation designed to reflect the roles of authority and submission operative within the Godhead.
The overwhelming evidence from Genesis 1-32 is more than sufficient to demonstrate the headship of Adam before the fall.
Adam was the sole and singular monarch and sovereign of the world under God. The terms sovereign and monarch exclude Eve as a co-ruler.3
Passages that your paper labels “difficult” are in fact clear and differentiate gender relationships, based on the order established by God at creation.
Your paper undermines the biblical concept of manhood in terms of both Adam’s pre-fall and post-fall role as spiritual leader. As a result, the biblical concept of womanhood is also undermined.
By Scripture, not by the philosophical argumentation found in your paper, can the nature of the Godhead and the principles of submission to divinely-constituted authority be understood.

New Testament Confirmation of Creation Order in Genesis

The apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Rom 5:12) confirms this interpretation of Genesis (Adam was formed first then Eve; the woman was created for the man; Eve was deceived but Adam is held responsible for sin, not Eve).
Unwillingness to accept Paul’s confirmation of this interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 violates the methods of biblical interpretation endorsed by Ellen G. White and articulated in the church’s 1986 “Methods of Bible Study” document.4
Within the church, the man is declared to be the head of the woman, not her mediator (1 Cor 11:3), because in context “head” (kephalē) means authority, not source (vv. 8-10).
The biblical principle of godly male headship in 1 Cor 11:3 combines with other biblical passages (e.g., 1 Tim 2-3; Titus 1:6-9) to show that there should be submission to the established spiritual authorities in the church.
Paul gives further instructions as to how this submission to authority functions in connection with issues that arose in the worship practice in Corinth (1 Cor 14).

Summary Response to Rodríguez 3

Your paper relies on doubtful human reconstructions of the historical context in Ephesus, not the clear biblical descriptions of it, and then proceeds to rewrite the meaning of 1 Timothy in harmony with the ideas of Western culture.
Paul does not write to a local church to correct problems (as in 1 and 2 Corinthians), but to Timothy with instructions how to manage the church (1 Tim 3:15), confirming that the epistles to Timothy and Titus “can be called the earliest church manuals.”5
According to Paul, order in the church is based on order in the home because the church is “the household of God” (1 Tim 3:15).
Your paper artificially separates home and church, undermining explicit gender roles in both and uses fear tactics that undermine gender definitions and distinctions. He also disregards the gender-specificity of countless biblical texts.
Paul has not misunderstood Genesis. The Biblical principle of godly male headship was given by God from the very beginning to preserve harmony, both in the home and in the church.
That is why Paul commands that authoritative teaching in the church be the responsibility of the elder: he “must be . . . the husband of one wife . . . [and] able to teach” (1 Tim 3:2; cf. Titus 1:6, 9).
The biblical principle of godly male headship is also the reason why the deacon, holding the only other ordained church office specified in Scripture, must likewise be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:12).
Phoebe was never a deaconess since no such office existed in the early church (Rom 16:1); otherwise Paul would have used the term when detailing church offices in connection with women (1 Tim 3:11). Consequently, there is no biblical basis for ordaining women to any position of church leadership.
In your paper, you select a few ambiguous statements of Ellen White while ignoring her many clear statements in order to establish a modern revisionist agenda. This flawed method includes quoting passages as authoritative that have been modified to be gender-inclusive but are gender-specific in the original. On p. 66 of your paper, you quote Ellen G. White, Christ Triumphant, (p.146), claiming that this statement is the same as what Ellen White wrote in the unpublished Manuscript 163, 1902. However, several of the words that you place in italics to prove that she urged gender inclusivity in ministry are among the gender-inclusive modifications that were made by the Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate in preparing the book for publication and do not accurately reflect what Ellen White wrote.6

Summary Response to Rodríguez 4

Why It Matters

If we ever get to the place as a church where we can understand such clear passages as 1 Timothy 3:2 to mean “wife of one husband” or simply “faithful man or woman,” then we can make any passage of Scripture say whatever we want it to say whenever it goes against our cultural values or comes in conflict with cherished ideas.
Finally, “There will be other issues. Will they too force us to find new ways of reading the text? Which portions of our Bible will we then call into question?”7

1 See Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Evaluation of the Arguments Used by Those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Ministry” (paper presented at the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, Columbia, Md., January 24, 2014). Cited March 28, 2014. Online: http://www.adventistarchives.org/evaluation-of-the-arguments-used-by-those- opposing-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-ministry.pdf.

2 See the twenty six points presented in John W. Peters, “Restoration of the Image of God: Headship and Submission” (paper presented at the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, Columbia, Md., January 24, 2014), 7-27. Cited March 28, 2014. Online: http://www.adventistarchives.org/restoration-of-the-image-of-god-headship-and- submission-john-peters.pdf.

3 Ellen G. White, Testimonies to the Church, 6:236; idem, The Signs of the Times, April 29, 1875; idem, The Desire of Ages, 129; idem, Patriarchs and Prophets, 48, 598; idem, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 1:1082; idem, Fundamentals of Christian Education, 38.
4 See “Methods of Bible Study Committee (GCC-A)—Report,” Adventist Review, January 22, 1987, 18; online: http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19870122-V164-04__B.pdf#view=fit. Cited March 28, 2014.

This statement was voted by the Executive Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at the Annual Council in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986.
5 The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 6:107.
6 Cf. Ellen G. White, Christ Triumphant, 6, where it is indicated that the original text has been modified to be gender-inclusive.

7 Clinton Wahlen, “Is ‘Husband of One Wife’ in 1 Timothy 3:2 Gender-Specific?”(paper presented at the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, Columbia, Md., January 23, 2014), 34. Cited March 28, 2014. Online: http://www.adventistarchives.org/is-“husband-of-one-1-wife”-in-1-timothy-32-gender-specific.pdf.

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 1

Dear Angel,

I was blessed by the time I spent with you at the recent Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC), when we sat together for breakfast. I enjoyed hearing your conversion story, and seeing your commitment to the Sabbath. It was instructive to learn how you and your wife worked through a difference in understanding of proper Sabbath observance without it dividing your home. I recognized we share a common desire to understand and follow truth, wherever it may lead.

In an introduction it is important to know what the preferred name is so that we can refer to each other with respect. In my letter I will refer to those who stand with the early church and promote the biblical qualifications for overseers as the “pro-biblical qualifications” group. I will refer to friends such as yourself who promote women’s ordination as the “pro-women’s ordination” group. Following this letter are replies by several of our colleagues to more specific points you attempt to make. We would have preferred to respond along the lines of previous responses in earlier meetings of TOSC but unfortunately because the steering committee is no longer allowing further responses we are compelled to respond to you in a more public way.

The method of Bible interpretation is at “the heart of our discussion”

The point you make is an important one. There is only one Leader; we need to get His orders straight. We don’t give the orders, we follow His orders.1 His orders are given in the Bible. How effective can an army be that argues over the orders from its general? By our disagreement we are actually declaring to the world that our General can’t write clear orders. Is He being untruthful when He says His orders are plain and perfectly understandable for those willing to follow them (John 7:17; Dan 12:10)? Would Christ give orders that divide and weaken His own army? Did Christ mean for His orders to be a source of conflict? Or did He give them to unite us

March 3, 2014

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 2

in a common mission? Something is seriously wrong when the Bible is dividing friends instead of uniting them.

How can two groups, both professing to take the Bible as their standard rule of faith and practice, come to diametrically opposite views on such a basic issue as the biblical qualifications for ordination? We agree that these groups must be interpreting the Bible differently. The method of Bible interpretation is indeed “at the heart” of the problem. This should lead each group into a time of self-examination to see what cherished sin is blocking us from properly understanding God’s word. Rightly understood, the Bible does not teach contradictory doctrines. While it is possible that the method of Bible interpretation used by both groups is flawed, it is not possible for both of them to be right.2

New and Different Method of Bible Interpretation

The early church had no division over their interpretation of the Bible regarding church leadership. They were “in one accord” when Matthias was selected for a leadership position. The pioneers had no division over their biblical interpretation regarding ordination.3 Since those holding the pro-biblical qualifications view use the same method of Bible study and interpretation as the pioneers,4 those holding the pro-women’s ordination view must employ a new and different method of biblical interpretation. Your paper makes an important
contribution by highlighting the fact that there is a difference between the method of Bible interpretation used by those who agree with the Bible’s emphasis that all should be engaged in ministry (the pioneers’ pro-biblical qualifications view), and the new and different method of Bible interpretation developed by those whose actions imply the very thing their words deny, that unordained ministry is somehow inferior and women must be ordained to truly engage in ministry (remarkably, the pro-women’s ordination view with this evident class distinction is sometimes called egalitarian!).

2 “The word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church, neither is he allowed to urge his opinions against the opinions of the church. If there were no church discipline and government, the church would go to fragments; it could not hold together as a body. There have ever been individuals of independent minds who have claimed that they were right, that God had especially taught, impressed, and led them. Each has a theory of his own, views peculiar to himself, and each claims that his views are in accordance with the word of God. Each one has a different theory and faith, yet each claims special light from God. These draw away from the body, and each one is a separate church of himself. All these cannot be right, yet they all claim to be led of the Lord. The word of Inspiration is not Yea and Nay, but Yea and Amen in Christ Jesus” (3T 428).
3 “The majority of the Sabbatarian adventists (sic) seem to have settled fairly quickly on what ordination signified; and their views remained remarkably consistent, from the embryonic days of the 1850s until denominational organization became well established,” David Trim, “Ordination in Seventh–Day Adventist History,” p. 9, TOSC, January, 2013.
4 The historical-grammatical method.

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 3

threatens the church with schism.5 Isn’t it prudent to say, “Proceed with caution” when a view is advanced that is occasionally portrayed by some supporters as more correct than the ordination practices of Christ, Paul, and our pioneers?

A Common Error in Bible Interpretation

It is a common error to mistake God’s silence as indicating His affirmation. “These things you have done, and I kept silent; you thought that I was altogether like you” (Ps 50:21). Certainly Jesus’ silence during His mock trial did not indicate His approval (Mk 14:60; 15:6), rather it was the greatest rebuke He could give (DA 729). To avoid this mistake in Bible interpretation, we have been instructed “to demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’” (GC 595), so it is not reassuring to have the NAD TOSC report begin its recommendations with “The Bible does not directly address the ordination of women.”6 This is employing a method of biblical interpretation that Jesus did not use. He said, “It is written”7 never “It is not written.” He asked, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (Luke 10:26, ESV) not “What is not written in the law? What can you read into it?”8

You have stated, “There is not a divine command in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or in the writings of Ellen White against ordaining women to the gospel ministry. Neither is there an explicit command not (sic) to ordain them” (p. 75). But this, like the confession of Achan, is simply acknowledging that which cannot be denied. And it is the same line of reasoning used by my Sunday keeping friends: There is no command in the Bible “Keep Sunday holy!” or “Do not keep Sunday holy!” However, the gospel commission does not direct us to go into all the world and teach whatever is not forbidden. It tells us to go into all the world and teach what has been commanded. Since women’s ordination is not commanded, it forms no part of the message we are to carry to the world and thus has no business being taught in seminaries and colleges that train Adventist pastors. Neither does it have any place in our publications.

Examining Claims

During your years at BRI, how many times did you have to deal with groups claiming to have “new” light? And how many times have you seen them quote Ellen White regarding the importance of not rejecting advancing light? Unfortunately, under scrutiny nearly all so-called

7 Some years ago I found the term “it is written” or its equivalent 72 times in a phrase search in the gospels.
8 It is instructive to observe how Ellen White used the silence of the Scriptures to draw positive conclusions. For example, she says, “I cannot find an instance in the life of Christ where He devoted time to play and amusement” (CT309) and uses this to show that we should not be promoting this.

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 4

“new” light is found to be old error repackaged. There is a reason the wise man advised, “Do not associate with those who are given to change” (Pro 24:21, NASB).

Both the Old and New Testament warn of departures from the faith (Deut 32:15; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 4:1).9 Members of God’s remnant church are not immune from such danger (Heb
3:12). The method of interpreting the Bible used by the early church and the pioneers brought church unity.10 From its early history, the Adventist Church was unified on the subject of ordination until relatively recent times.11 Undoubtedly you have seen the problem when “a man takes his views of Bible truth without regard to the opinion of his brethren, and justifies his course, alleging that he has a right to his own peculiar views, and then presses them upon others” (CET 201). This causes schism. I have no doubt that you have had to deal with such problems many times; this is one of the great reasons the BRI exists. Since we neither want to reject light nor accept error,12 we investigate claims of “new” truth. In this investigation we use the tool of a common method to interpret the Bible.

Are we departing from the uniting method of biblical interpretation of the early church and our pioneers? This can only delight our enemies who can then say, “The Adventists are divided and thus cannot be Christ’s disciples, since the truth unites” (John 17:21;13:35).

How plain truths of the Bible are obscured

God has given us a striking warning that “the truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men” (GC 598). Furthermore, we are to avoid allowing the “seeming difficulty” contained in some Bible passage to confuse “the minds of others in reference to points that are clear and easy to be understood” (5T 705).

Balance

11 “The history of ordination in general is largely a history of our early years and of how we established and agreed [on] our understanding of ordination; whereas the history of the place of women’s ordination in Adventism is largely the history of ordination since 1968,” David Trim, “Ordination in Seventh–Day Adventist History,” p. 1, TOSC, January, 2013.

12 “While warning men to beware of accepting anything unless it is truth, we should also warn them not to imperil their souls by rejecting messages of light, but to press out of the darkness by earnest study of the word of God” (GW92 129).

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 5

the Bible implicitly and seek to follow it, form their views from their study of the inspired writings. Their views constantly expand as they continue their study and see truths they have missed in their prior study. They study deeply and carefully, comparing Scripture with Scripture until they know “what saith the Lord.” In their presentations they present those passages that most clearly and forcibly convey the sense of what they have learned from the entire body of inspired writings. This is not lack of balance; this is the only way to have balance and use inspired sources lawfully, and “we know the law is good if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim 1:8).

For convenience I am including the quotes side by side. I have retained the italicizations you added. I have placed the altered portions in underlined-bold.

As Recently Altered By the White Estate

What Ellen White Actually Wrote

Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men and women who fear God, who realize that they are humans only, not God. They should be people who will rule under God and for Him. Will they give expression to the will of God for His people? Do they allow selfishness to tarnish word and action? Do they, after obtaining the confidence of the people as leaders of wisdom who fear God and keep His commandments, belittle the exalted position that the people of God should occupy in these days of peril? Will they through self- confidence become false guideposts, pointing the way to friendship with the world instead of the way to heaven?

Your Footnote is “Manuscript 163, 1902= CTr 146.”

Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men who fear God, who realize that they are men only, not God. They should
be men who rule under God and for Him. Will they give expression to the will of God for His people? Do they allow selfishness to tarnish word and action? Do they, after obtaining the confidence of the people as men of wisdom, who fear God and keep His commandments, belittle the exalted position that the people of God should occupy in these days of

peril? Will they through self-confidence become false guide-posts, pointing the way to friendship with the world instead of the way to heaven? (Unpublished Ms 163, 1902),

After condemning the tendency “to quote what supports their argument,” it is particularly ironic that you utilized this inaccurate quotation. Would you have used the unaltered quotation for your argument? I don’t think so. Does the original Manuscript 163, 1902 really equal Christ Triumphant? No. This altered document is a very serious misrepresentation of Ellen White’s words. Though these additions were made with the best of intentions and approved by the trustees of the White Estate, they appear to violate a prohibition of God, “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Pro 30:6). Your paper has done the world

13 A general acknowledgement of this is made in the Preface of this book as well as To Be Like Jesus and From the Heart, the three most recent devotionals produced by the White Estate.
14 This is an unpublished manuscript and not on the CD-ROM. The portion included in Christ Triumphant, is the only version found in the CD-ROM and, unfortunately, it is in the altered form.

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 6

church a service by exposing the danger when such changes are made. Hopefully, the practice will be stopped and the alterations in these otherwise fine books be removed.

Sources for our method of biblical interpretation

Your assertion that a concern about the importance and source of one’s method of biblical interpretation is somehow a diatribe (p. 8) is itself a diatribe. “You then who teach others, do you not teach yourself?” (Rom 2:21, ESV). This ad hominem attack could raise questions about the genuineness of the paper’s introductory graciousness.

Context

You have made an astute observation by zeroing in on the fact that the major difference between the method both groups use in Bible interpretation is in “the proper use of the context” (pp. 4,9). Your point needs emphasis because taking passages out of context is the foundation for false doctrine and is how false doctrines and unbiblical practices enter the church. “In order to sustain erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices, some will seize upon passages of Scripture separated from the context” (GC 521). Illustrating how this can be done Ellen White wrote: “A few words of Scripture are separated from the context ... and used in proof of doctrines that have no foundation in the word of God” (GC 539).15

Perhaps an example of this would help: “There is neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28) are “a few words of Scripture” which can be “separated from the context” “and used in proof of Bible” support for ordaining women as overseers or even gay marriage, but would be “doctrines that have no foundation in the Word of God.”16

Your paper provides many examples of quotations lifted out of their context. For example, immediately after seriously misquoting an unpublished Ellen White manuscript (p. 66), you quote a Spirit of Prophecy excerpt without providing the context: “When women are wanted with well-balanced minds, with not a cheap style of education, but with an education fitting them for any position of trust, they are not easily found” (p. 67). Let’s look at the context of this quotation and examine how Ellen White uses the term “any position of trust.” The title of the Review17 article is “Proper Education of the Young.” The first paragraph of the article gives us the context, “Ministerial labor cannot and should not be intrusted to boys, neither should the work of giving Bible readings be intrusted to inexperienced girls, because they offer their services, and are willing to take responsible positions, but who are wanting in religious experience, without a thorough education and training” (RH 6/21/1887). Elsewhere Ellen White explains what she means by the expression, “any position of trust.” “Faithful, earnest, and frequent prayer should

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 7

be offered that these children may be fitted for any position of trust to which God shall call them” (ST 6/9/1881).18

Context, as used by the Spirit of Prophecy and those holding the pro-biblical qualifications view, means the context given in the inspired writings themselves. It is from the riches of the Bible itself that all understanding of the Bible must be drawn. When studying a verse or passage of Scripture we begin by looking at the immediate context to make certain our interpretation is consistent with the surrounding verses. It continues as we examine the passage more deeply, comparing Scripture with Scripture, making certain the interpretation is in harmony with every other biblical passage on this topic that we can locate (GC 320).

Our great need is to know the Bible.19 “The entrance of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (Ps 119:130). Jesus is our example. “The Scriptures of the Old Testament were His constant study, and the words, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ were ever upon His lips” (DA 84). Even as a young person he was urged to accept false doctrines commonly accepted by the Jews, and taught by the Jewish scholars, but “He asked for their authority in Holy Writ. He would hear every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; but He could not obey the inventions of men. Jesus seemed to know the Scriptures from beginning to end, and He presented them in their true import” (DA 85).

Obedience, the key the properly understanding the Bible

“Disobedience has closed the door to a vast amount of knowledge that might have been gained from the Scriptures. Understanding means obedience.... They can be understood only by those who are humbly seeking for a knowledge of the truth that they may obey it” (COL 112). Jesus understood whom to ordain because He was obedient. The early church understood whom to ordain because they were obedient. Paul understood the qualification for selecting overseers because he was obedient. As we obey, we too can understand (John 7:17).

Purpose, an important part of understanding the Bible

18 Emphasis supplied.
19 “Our salvation depends on a knowledge of the truth contained in the Scriptures” (COL 111).
20 “We are not to think, as did the Jews, that our own ideas and opinions are infallible; nor with the papists, that certain individuals are the sole guardians of truth and knowledge, that men ... must accept the explanations given by the Fathers of the church” (GW92 125).

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 8

process. By contrast the consistent Adventist purpose of Bible study is to humbly go to the Bible to learn what you should believe, not go to the Bible to confirm what you already believe.21

First, this is pure speculation since only God can read the mind and know the desires of the heart (1 Kings 8:39). With the warning that “earnest zeal” and “intense desire to have others see and understand the truth” will be misinterpreted (5T 520), how can you be sure your surmising is not a misinterpretation of just such earnest zeal? “In commenting upon the ... motives of another, who can be certain of speaking the exact truth?” (MB 68).

Second, this is forbidden speculation (Matt 7:1) and those who make these speculative judgments are revealing their own motives (Rom 2:1).

Fourth, your summary statement ignores the fact that the pro-biblical qualifications’ historical- grammatical method of biblical interpretation is a continuation of the pioneers’ method of biblical interpretation. James White, editor of The Review, very early wrote an editorial23 and later published articles written by Elder Joseph B. Frisbee covering the biblical qualifications for

21 “We should not study the Bible for the purpose of sustaining our preconceived opinions, but with the single object of learning what God has said” (GW92 125). “You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given” (COL 112). “You will never reach the truth if you study the Scriptures to vindicate your own ideas. Leave these at the door, and with a contrite heart go in to hear what the Lord has to say to you. As the humble seeker for truth sits at Christ’s feet, and learns of Him, the word gives him understanding.... Do not read the word in the light of former opinions.... Do not try to make the word fit these opinions. Make your opinions fit the word. Do not allow what you have believed or practiced in the past to control your understanding. Open the eyes of your mind to behold wondrous things out of the law. Find out what is written, and then plant your feet on the eternal Rock” (MYP 260). There are many more such statements, but this is a representative sample.

22 “It leads away from a discussion of the arguments themselves into an evaluation of the character and intentions of those involved in the discussion” (p. 8-9).
23 The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 20, 1853.

Open Letter to Dr. Ángel Rodriquez Page 9

ordination.24 Other pioneers, such as Roswell F. Cottrell, who served on The Review editorial committee, seconded these arguments.25 “There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9) and the arguments used by the pioneers are similar to arguments your paper dismisses. We should be cautious in statements that would also impugn the motives of these pioneers, who being dead, yet speak.

Summary

Angel, I welcome your response to the observations of this letter. If I have misunderstood your thinking or misstated your position, I would be happy to be corrected. I have been hesitant to send this letter. You are a respected Adventist theologian. God has used your ministry as a great blessing to the church. On numerous occasions God has enabled you to provide wise Biblical counsel that has made a major difference in critical situations. Please consider these comments, not as an attack, but as an appeal. How can I not be concerned for you and those who may be influenced by your present paper? Truth is not advanced when you take inspired writings out of context, use ad hominem thrusts, or judge the motives of your friends. Truth requires no new method of biblical interpretation. The Adventist church long ago rejected as invalid the very “contextualized” approach the pro-women’s ordination advocates must use and which the NAD report actually now acknowledges. This approach allows the power of man to change God’s word instead of allowing the power of God’s word to change the man.

The Bible compares our actions (including writing and speaking) to the preparation of food. “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season? Blessed is that servant whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Assuredly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all his goods. But if that evil servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 24:45-51).

It is my prayer that we will both receive the blessing promised to those who prepare food in due season by accurately presenting present truth as it is in Jesus.

Sincerely,

Phil Mills, MD

P.S. In a followup document, I am attaching concerns from some of those you specifically reference. It was reading some of these comments that motivated this letter.

24 The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 26, 1854, January 9, 1855, June 19. 1856. 25 The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, October 2 and 9, 1856.

Response to Rodriguez’s Critique on Headship The Trinity and Genesis 1-3
John W. Peters

Dear Angel,
Please allow me to address your reading of my posted TOSC paper as it relates to headship in the Trinity and headship in Genesis 1-3. I have always valued your scholarship; however your attempt to undermine the concept of headship both in the Trinity and also in the relationship of Adam and Eve at creation lacks credibility for the following reasons summarized below.
Headship and the Godhead
My major concern is that you rely extensively on philosophical and ad hominem arguments (appealing to emotion) especially as it relates to the Trinity. Functional differentiation of roles within the Trinity is clearly established from Scripture and the writings of Ellen G. White. Although the concept of ontological equality (equality of being) and eternal functional submission within the Godhead has been a common doctrine within the Christian church for centuries and has been embraced by such notable theologians and historians as Louis Berkhof, Augutus Hopkins Strong, Charles Hodge, Philip Schaff, J. N. D. Kelley, and Geoffrey Bromiley, the concept of eternal submission of the Son to the Father is a non-issue with respect to the principle of authority and submission as observed from the beginning of creation by the first created beings.
From the viewpoint of the first created beings, the submissive role of the Son appeared to be inherent in the nature of the Son. To the angelic host the submission of the Son of God to the Father appeared to place the Son on a level perhaps only a little higher than themselves. If we accept the inspired nature of the writings of Ellen G. White, the angelic host correctly perceived the submission of the Son, but the ontological equality of the Son with the Father was unclear to them.

There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation . . . . made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. PP 38

The Father then made known that it was ordained by himself that Christ, his Son, should be equal with himself. . . The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son he had invested with authority to command the heavenly host. . . . endowing Him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son.

1SP 17-18

Similar to the evidence above but based on Proverbs 8, Davidson concludes that at some point in eternity past, the Son was inaugurated/installed (nasak) in His role as the Son, as the Word, and as the Mediator between God and the created universe. (Richard M. Davidson, “Proverbs 8: A Christocentric Interpretation,” [Paper available from the author]. See also Davidson, “Proverbs 8 and the Place of Christ in the Trinity,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 17, no. 1 [Spring 2006]: 33–54.) Thus from the viewpoint of created angels, the Son functioned as Mediator between the angels and the Father—a state of submission to the Father which appeared to them to be inherent in the Son’s being. This misunderstanding necessitated a clear statement from the Father regarding the Son’s inherent equality with the Father. The obvious, non-inherent, functional role differentiation

John W. Peters Response to Rodriguez’s Critique Page 1

between the Father and the Son required no explanation. It is certainly conceivable, based on Davidson’s treatment of Proverbs 8, that prior to the inauguration of the Son as Mediator and the Word, no functional role differentiation existed among the Godhead. This is in fact Davidson’s basic argument derived from Proverbs 8—namely, that the condescension of the Son to the Father began with the Son’s inauguration as Mediator between God and the created universe prior to the beginning of all creation and the appearance of the first created being.

Since we have no inspired evidence concerning the relation of the Father and the Son prior to the creation of the universe and the appearance of the first created beings, all philosophical speculation such as you wish to engage in is meaningless. In fact your rejection of functional differentiation within the Trinity prior to and following the incarnation, except for economic submission during the incarnation, is a departure from biblical truth. From what we can ascertain from Scripture and the writings of Ellen G. White, it is clear that the Son functioned in a subordinate role to the Father as Commander of the heavenly host prior to the incarnation. Moreover, the Father had bestowed upon His Son exalted honors that Satan coveted—a further indication of the subordinate role of the Son in prior to the incarnation.

He laid aside his kingly crown, and yielded up his high position as commander of the angels, who loved to do his bidding. {RH, January 7, 1904 par. 7}
Satan, who was once an honored angel in heaven, had been ambitious for the more exalted honors which God had bestowed upon His Son. {Con 9.2}

The Son of God, at least since the creation of the first intelligent beings, functioned in the submissive (condescending) role as Commander of the angels, and the Son will continue to be subject to the Father in eternity future (1 Cor 15:28). Ontological equality (equality of being) and functional submission therefore constitutes the image of God from the standpoint of the created universe and in the view of the first created beings.

In an effort to deflect any implication of headship in Genesis 1, you state (13) that “The decision to save the human race was an inter-Trinitarian one in which the three persons of the Godhead were involved until they together could say, ‘Let us save the human race.’ This is what they, as One, decided to do for us.” It would be better to take the Bible simply as it reads rather than imposing on Scripture your ideas. The declaration in Genesis 1 “Let Us make man in our image” reflects differentiation in the Godhead, “Us.” It is evident that the declaration by one member of the Trinity, “Let Us make man in our image,” suggests that the one speaking is giving permission to the other members to commence the creation of mankind. The one in authority gives the command, “Let Us.” Ellen White confirms this conclusion when she states that “They had wrought together in the creation of the earth and every living thing upon it. And now God said to His Son, ‘Let us make man in our image’” (1SP 25). Thus, in addition to equality of being in the Trinity, we also see evidence for authority/submission roles with the Godhead. Consequently, if male and female are made in the image of God, we can be certain they would reflect the authority and submission roles operative within the Godhead.

Arguing about the eternal nature of the Trinity is fruitless, since the nature of the infinite God is beyond our comprehension and forever will be. We simply take our stand on Scripture and evidence from the writings of Ellen G. White that, at a minimum, the Son assumed a role of willing submission to the Father at some point in eternity past, prior to the creation of the universe and the appearance of the first created beings, and the Son will

John W. Peters Response to Rodriguez’s Critique Page 2

continue in that functional role of submission into the indefinite eternity future (1 Cor 15:28).
Pre-Fall Headship and Adam
Your assertion that support for the pre-Fall headship of Adam is dependent on the influence of evangelical scholars (17) is simply not true. To the contrary, we have demonstrated the pre-Fall headship of Adam from the internal evidence of Genesis 1-3 alone (the 26 points of my January 2014 TOSC paper) with additional support from the writings of Ellen G. White. It is a curious charge in view of the fact that advocates’ arguments for the ordination of women is almost always supported by citations from evangelical feminist authors. Significantly, Davidson’s July 2013 TOSC paper is a prime example where he cites evangelical feminist scholars and others resulting in a total of 326 endnotes. The assertion that it is always necessary for complementarians to use 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 to derive the pre-Fall headship of Adam in Genesis 2-3 is a spurious argument. In fact, historical-critical and feminist scholar Rosemary Radford Reuther found it necessary to abandon a high view of Scripture because she clearly identified the principle of headship and submission as being built into the Genesis 2 record, not Genesis 3.

Even in the original, unfallen creation, women would have been subordinate and under the domination of man. (Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology, Beacon Press [1983], 94.) [M]ale-female hierarchy was not just a product of sin, it was a part of the natural order created by God. (Ibid., 97.)

The record in Genesis 2-3 is self-interpreting with respect to the pre-Fall headship of Adam. Despite your ad hominem arguments to the contrary, the twenty-six points of identification within Genesis 2-3 of the pre-Fall headship of Adam, which we previously delineated, speak for themselves—they need no defense. The apostle Paul saw it; Rosemary Radford Reuther saw it (and despised it); and others have seen the pre-Fall headship of Adam in the record of Genesis 2-3. Three obvious indications of Adam’s headship should supply sufficient evidence to even the casual reader. For example, though Eve sinned first, they both become naked only after Adam sins (3:7). God apprehends, interrogates, and indicts Adam first, not Eve (3:9-11). God holds Adam accountable for heeding the voice of his wife (3:17). Thus Paul concludes from the record of Genesis 2-3 that because the woman came from man, who was created first (1 Cor 11:8; 1 Tim 2:13), and the woman was created for man as a helper (1 Cor 11:9), therefore man is head of the woman (11:3). Furthermore, the record of Genesis 2-3 enables Paul to conclude that death entered the human race by Adam’s sin, not Eve’s (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22)—confirming the headship responsibility of Adam rather than of Eve, even though she sinned first. You refuse to allow Scripture to interpret itself to the extent that Paul’s interpretative statements of Genesis 2 and 3 are off-limits. You avoid addressing the scriptural evidence and instead employ philosophical and ad hominem arguments, which divert attention away from the Bible’s clear teaching on this point.

You cite Ellen White as providing evidence that God instructed both Adam and Eve how to tend the Garden and also warned both of them regarding the Forbidden Tree (22). We do not deny that God spoke to both of them regarding these issues. This, however, does not negate the scriptural evidence that God put the man in the Garden to tend and keep it prior to the creation of Eve (Gen 2:15), and that God spoke to Adam first regarding the Forbidden

John W. Peters Response to Rodriguez’s Critique Page 3

Tree (2:16-17). Thus Scripture supports the understanding that Adam was given priority of responsibility as related to Eve, which conveyed the role of headship. A summary of pre- Fall headship evidence from Ellen G. White may be helpful here.

1. Adam was to stand at the head of the earthly family, 6T 236.1
2. Adam [was] the monarch of the world, ST Apr. 29, 1875.
3. Adam was the vicegerent of the Creator, DA 129.
4. Sabbath was committed to Adam, the father and representative of the whole human family, PP 48

5. Adam was crowned king in Eden, 1BC 1082.2.
6. [God] made Adam the rightful sovereign over all the works of His hands, 1BC 1082.2 7. [God] made him ruler over the earth, PP 59
8. Adam was lord in his beautiful domain, FE 38

You comment on 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 (the woman was created from man and for the man) and conclude, through complicated and perplexing reasoning based on Greek grammar and analogy with Mark 2:27, that the phrases “from Adam/for Adam” emphasize the equality of the two within gender differentiation and not the subjection of the one to the other (27-29). Paul, on the other hand, uses his assertions in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 to support the headship of the man over the woman. This is a clear example of where you abandon the plain

reading of the text and spiritualize the text so that the text no longer means what the literal reading brings out. We are faced with two choices: accept the plain reading of the text and Paul’s teaching based on Genesis, or accept your strained interpretation.

In an effort to refute the idea that the naming of the woman by Adam in Genesis 2 implies headship, you conclude your argument by stating that God brought the animals to Adam for naming; but then amazingly you assert that “[T]his explicit divine intention is absent in 2:23—it is not said that God brought Eve to Adam to name her” (30). However, your assertion is explicitly contradicted by the Genesis account which states that “He brought her to the man. And Adam said: . . . ‘she shall be called woman’” (2:22-23). Your assertion is patently not biblical and ignores the plain reading of the text.

You claim that both Adam and Eve were monarchs and kings over the world. He states “In Genesis the role of ruler or monarch over the world was given to both Adam and Eve. Why would she [White] limit it to Adam? The answer: She [White] does not limit it to Adam.
Both were monarchs in Eden. She is very clear about this: ‘While they remained true to God, Adam and his companion were to bear rule over the earth’” (33). Your misapplication of Ellen White writings regarding “monarch of the world” is unacceptable. Ellen White never states that Eve was a monarch or king. The very word “monarch” means “sole ruler.” It is impossible for someone to be a monarch and have a co-ruler. Your basic supporting argument is that they were both “to bear rule over the earth” and thus they must be co- rulers. It is true that “Adam and his companion were to bear rule over the earth” (PP 50). But this does not contradict the thrust of all her other statements concerning the relationship of Adam to his helper. The passage does not say, “Adam and his companion were to bear co-rulership over the earth,” since it is not detailing the relationship of Adam

to his companion, but their relationship to the earth and other creatures God had made. Adam’s “companion” was his “helper” (see PP 46). At his creation Adam was made “ruler

John W. Peters Response to Rodriguez’s Critique Page 4

over the earth and all living creatures. So long as Adam remained loyal to Heaven, all nature was in subjection to him” (PP 59). With Eve as Adam's “helper” (companion), they both were to “tend and keep” the Garden. But primary responsibility was given to Adam. Eve was to bear rule over the earth with him. Eve may well have functioned as “queen” of the Garden home, being second in authority to Adam, but this does not mean she was a “co- ruler” in the sense of being appointed co-monarch, co-sovereign (no such designations are possible), vice-gerent, etc.

You assert that a “pre-fall headship was unnecessary in the garden of Eden” (26) and to support your claim you cite on PP 58-59 where, after the Fall, it is stated that Eve “was now placed in subjection to her husband.” The statement of PP 58-59 is within the context of a pre-Fall harmonious relationship and restoring that harmonious relationship after the Fall. Prior to the Fall there existed a natural and harmonious headship/submission relationship of the man and the woman. Now after the Fall, the woman was placed in subjection to her husband by divine decree. The harmonious headship/submission relationship of the man and the woman could only be restored through divine decree. In the context of the full statement that “harmony [could be] preserved only by submission” and that Eve was “placed in subjection to her husband,” the author distinguishes between pre-fall harmony and the necessary means for preserving harmony in a post-Fall condition. Pre-fall harmony was natural with the principle of headship/submission as part of the natural creation order, as documented by the 26 points of pre-Fall headship in Genesis 1-3 in my paper. But upon Adam’s relinquishing of his headship role to Eve, harmony in a post-Fall condition now could be preserved only by divinely mandated headship/submission (unnatural in the initial, inherent post-fall condition) on the part of the one or the other. It was necessary for God to spell out a “law for the family,” since submission was no longer natural anymore. Therefore God said, "Thy desire shall be for [against] thy husband, and he shall rule over you." This is analogous to the necessity of God spelling out the existence of a law in heaven after Lucifer rebelled and it came to the unfallen angels as something unthought of, because they naturally obeyed the law. You fail to follow your own emphasis on relying on the internal context of the passage to arrive at a correct interpretation. In this case, the context of pre-Fall harmony with maintaining post-Fall harmony is all important in elucidating the pre-Fall headship of Adam.

Finally you argue about points you want to critique, but you avoid the main arguments of headship both within the Trinity from the beginning of creation, which will continue into the indefinite future according to 1 Corinthians 15:28, and also within the pre-Fall headship of Adam, which is reinforced in Genesis 3.

Summary
• The Son of God, at least since the creation of the first intelligent beings, functioned in

the submissive (condescending) role as Commander of the angels, and the Son will continue to be subject to the Father in eternity future (1 Cor 15:28). Ontological equality (equality of being) and functional submission therefore constitutes the image of God from the standpoint of the created universe and in the view of the first created beings. Consequently, if male and female are made in the image of God, we

John W. Peters Response to Rodriguez’s Critique Page 5

can be certain they would reflect the authority and submission roles operative

within the Godhead.

The internal evidence within Genesis 1-3 (the 26 points in my January 2014 TOSC

paper) is more than sufficient to demonstrate the pre-Fall headship of Adam. The apostle Paul’s interpretation of Adam’s headship in Genesis 2 and 3 (Adam was formed first then Eve; Eve, not Adam, was deceived; the woman was created for the man) reinforces the internal evidence of Genesis. Rodriguez’s unwillingness to accept Paul’s confirmation of this interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 violates the methods of biblical interpretation as endorsed by Ellen G. White and articulated in the 1986 Methods of Bible Study Document.

God brought the woman to Adam and he named her (“she shall be called woman”). Rodriguez ignores the divine intention for Adam to name the woman in Gen 2:22-23 and simply rejects the plain reading of the text. This interpretation is patently unbiblical.

The statement in PP 58-59 regarding submission of the woman is within the context of a pre-Fall harmonious relationship and restoring that harmonious relationship after the Fall. This statement reinforces the pre-Fall headship role of Adam.

Adam was the sole and singular monarch and sovereign of the world under God. The terms sovereign and monarch exclude Eve and demand absolute singularity.

The record of Genesis 2-3 enables Paul to conclude that death entered the human race by Adam’s sin, not Eve’s (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22), confirming the headship responsibility of Adam rather than of Eve, even though she sinned first.

Paul uses his assertions in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 to support the headship of the man over the woman (the woman was created “from Adam and for

Adam”). Rodriguez abandons the plain reading of the text and spiritualizes the text so that the text no longer means what the literal reading brings out.

• Ellen G. White repeatedly endorses and supports the pre-Fall headship of Adam.

5. Adam was crowned king in Eden, 1BC 1082.2.
6. [God] made Adam the rightful sovereign over all the works of His hands, 1BC 1082.2 7. [God] made him ruler over the earth, PP 598.
8. Adam was lord in his beautiful domain, FE 38

John W. Peters Response to Rodriguez’s Critique Page 6

Responses to Angel Rodriguez’ Arguments on 1 Cor 11, 14

by Edwin Reynolds, PhD Summary of the responses to Dr. Rodriguez’ arguments:

We agree: the man is declared to be the head of the woman, not her mediator.
We disagree: kephalē refers in context to a metaphorical head or ruler, not to a

source.
3. Rodriguez misuses an Ellen White quote to justify his argument for kephalē as source.

The headship principle in 11:3 combines with other NT passages to show submission to the head or spiritual authority, contrary to what Rodriguez insists.
What Rodriguez calls “a difficult passage” is not as obscure as he says, but differentiates gender relationships.
Rodriguez asks if there is headship in the passage at all: clearly there is, by definition.
We agree: the passage “provides instructions about gender differentiation” which was “established by the Lord at creation.” But it is not only about men or women leading out.
We disagree: by covering her head, the woman is glorifying the man, not God directly.
We disagree: the authority a woman has on her head is not her own but is the man’s.
We disagree: there is equality in essence but not in function between the genders.
We disagree: in 1 Cor 14 the key issue is submission for order in worship, and this is

in the same context of submission to headship authority as already established in 1

Cor 11.

Rodriguez omits discussion of 1 Cor 14:35-38, which is important for the

conclusions.

As Angel Rodriguez begins to analyze the arguments for headship in 1 Cor 11:3, he argues that if Christ is the head of every man/male, then it can be argued that either He is not also the Head of every woman/female, or if He is the Head through the husband, then the husband becomes the spiritual mediator for his wife. Clearly, he believes that this invalidates the interpretation of the passage, since he does not believe that the husband should be a spiritual mediator for his wife—or a man for a woman. But this is a bogus argument, since the point of the passage is voluntary submission to headship authority, not mediation of spiritual matters or relationships. Christ is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). We make no one else a mediator for either man or woman, in that sense, although clearly there are humans who act as intercessors, praying on behalf of other human beings, as many biblical texts show (1 Sam 7:5; 1 Kgs 13:6; Eph 6:19-20; Phil 1:19; Col 4:12; 1 Tim 2:1; Jas 5:16). But even this is not the point of the passage. There is nothing in the passage about either intercession or mediation. It is about showing respect for designated authority, referred to by the metaphor of functioning as a head in relation to

2 Edwin Reynolds’ Response to Rodríguez

another party. This authority as it pertains to the head is explicitly mentioned in 1 Cor 11:10: “the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” (NKJV, NASB); “a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head (ESV); “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (NIV). The proper response to authority in Scripture is clear: it is voluntary submission. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. There-fore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment” (Rom 13:1-2).

Rodriguez takes up the argument that kephalē (“head”) should be rendered as “source” in this context, but there is little justification for this. Kephalē means “source” in Scripture only when it is referring to a river or stream, as the fountainhead. Teresa Reeve admits that kephalē as source “is not prominent in the lexicons, outside of reference to the head of a river.”1 But such is not the use in this context. Here we find it being used clearly as a figure for an authority, as shown above. Walter Bauer’s lexicon, under figurative use, says kephalē is used, “in the case of living beings, to denote superior rank,” and cites examples of texts citing father, master, husband, and Christ Himself as those assigned superior rank by the term kephalē (“head”), both within and outside of Scripture. Bauer cites Artemidorus 2.9 (2d cent.), for example, as saying, using the literal head in a metaphorical sense, as Paul does, hē kephalē hyperechei tou pantos sōmatos, meaning “the head is in authority over (or rules over) the entire body.”2 The reality is that in the LXX kephalē is equivalent to archontōn (ruler). The context of each passage makes this clear. One needs to understand kephalē in 1 Cor 11 as it is used in the parallel expressions found in other Pauline passages such as Eph 5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.” The husband is certainly not the source of the wife, and it would be awkward to understand in the same context that Christ is the source of the church, since He is depicted not as Founder of the church but as its Savior, and the relationship is clearly defined in the next verse as one of submission to the head: “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Also, in Col 1:18, which declares Christ to be “the head of the body, the church,” the text explicitly states, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” The issue is one of rank, not of source.

Rodriguez argues in a footnote, not from within the text of 1 Cor 11 or from biblical evidence but from an Ellen White quotation that cites 11:3, that kephalē should be read as “source.” This is the same scholar who argues against using Paul to interpret Gen 1-3, but he has no scruples against using a homiletical passage in Ellen White to make an exegetical interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3, despite other internal evidence to the contrary. He accuses me

1Teresa Reeve, “Shall the Church Ordain Women as Pastors: Thoughts toward an Integrated NT Perspective,” paper presented July 4, 2013, to the General Conference Theology of Ordination Study Committee, Baltimore, MD, available from http://www.adventistarchives.org/ shall-the-church-ordain-women-as-pastors.pdf , accessed March 12, 2014, 33.

2Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed., rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001), s.v. κεφαλή.

3 Edwin Reynolds’ Response to Rodríguez

of not providing evidence from within the chapter for kephalē as headship authority, although I have provided it, but he has not provided any internal evidence for kephalē as source, only an indistinct quotation from Ellen White, which is neither exegetical nor explicit. He asks if the primary purpose of 1 Cor 11:2-16 is “to reaffirm the subjection of women to church leaders,” as if that is what I had suggested. Clearly, it is not, but neither is it to assert “the origin and mission of Christ,” as he argues Ellen White is teaching by quoting from 1 Cor 11:3. So his argument is no more valid than mine—in fact less so, since I argue from the content of the passage itself and parallel Pauline statements, while he argues from a homiletical use of one verse by Ellen White in a single quotation, which proves nothing. In fact, the whole passage is about church order and gender relationships in the church, which is grounded ultimately—within the text itself—in the original plan for gender relationships as revealed in the order and purpose of their creation (vv. 7-9). This is Paul’s argument, and he establishes it on biblical and theological, not local and cultural grounds. Every argument he makes is universalized, whether citing the biblical account

of creation before the Fall (vv. 7-9), the practice of the angels (v. 10), the natural order of things everywhere as a result of the created order in which God gave women long hair for a covering (vv. 13-15), even the universal practice of all the churches (v. 16). It is all about God’s order, as verse 3 establishes at the outset, and as all of the subsequent arguments support. God wants men and women to understand His system of order and submit themselves to it at the appropriate, assigned levels. Understanding kephalē as headship authority, rather than as source, is more ap-propriate to the context, especially in view of the explicit mention of such authority in verse 10.

While it is true, as Rodriguez says, that the passage does not explicitly declare that women are to be in submission to men who function as church leaders, it does establish the headship principle on a gender basis, grounded in the order and purpose of the creation of men and women (not of husbands and wives, as made clear in verses 11-12), and it demonstrates one application of that principle in the matter of covering the head as a representation of respect for the authority under which each is to live and act. Thus it lays the groundwork for Paul’s subsequent teaching in other passages like 1 Cor 14, Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Tim 2-3, and Titus 1-3 regarding order in gender relationships in the home and in the church. Combined with additional teaching regarding those who hold teaching authority in the church, namely apostles and elders, there is every reason to understand the broad teaching of Scripture regarding male headship in the home and in the church. The home establishes the pattern for the church, as taught in Eph 5 and 1 Tim 3. The fact that the same headship principle is established within the Godhead (1 Cor 11:3; 15:28) demonstrates that it is not a bad principle that needs to be done away with, as some would teach, but that it is a valid pattern established by God that will continue into the new creation (15:28).

In his fourth major point (p. 43), Rodriguez takes a statement of mine out of context to suggest that I can’t discern Paul’s purpose in writing the passage, so I am left to conjecture what the thrust of the passage is and end up creating the notion of headship, which is not

Edwin Reynolds’ Response to Rodríguez

really there at all. This is very unfair. What I was saying was that Paul does not explicitly tell us why he raised the issue being discussed in the passage (which is certainly true), whether it was an issue they had asked about or whether he was raising it on his own initiative. We certainly do know what the context of the larger passage was about, and I discussed that in some detail in my paper. It had to do with issues that were dividing the church and creating disorder within the church. The principle expressed so clearly in 11:3 seeks to establish a theological basis upon which order could be grounded, placing ordered gender relationships clearly between the ordered relationship of man to Christ and of Christ to God the Father. Then he works out the practical application of that principle in the life of the church, distinguishing the role of women from the role of men in a public and representative way that demonstrates the acceptance on the part of each of their proper roles as established by God at creation. There is nothing obscure about what the passage is teaching, except to those who don’t like what the text seems to be saying. It has been under-stood fairly consistently through the centuries until the postmodern period, when a variety of different interpretations have been made that attempt to circumvent the clear implications of the passage. Rodriguez calls it a “difficult passage,” and points to “a good alternative” by Teresa Reeve that avoids the implications of headship that most readers would immediately find to be self-evident in the text and corroborated by other parallel texts that point to gender role distinc-tions in the home and in the church. After I presented my paper in July 2013, several present approached me and thanked me for presenting the first clear presentation that takes the plain reading of the text seriously, whereas so many other papers were making convoluted arguments as to why one should not read the text in a straightforward way but needs to explain away the various elements that seem plain in the text with supposed cultural practices that are neither mentioned in the text nor in harmony with the universal arguments Paul identifies for why all churches should follow the same practices.

Rodriguez asks if there is, in fact, a discussion of headship in the passage at all. The question itself is an odd one: headship is the state of being a head, and the term kephalē (“head”) is used eight times in the passage. So what is the purpose of trying to argue that the discussion of headship is not found in the passage if not merely to dismiss out of hand any discussion of such a principle. If the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God, as the text explicitly states, then there is certainly a discussion of headship in the passage, with three different categories of the state of being a head in relation to others. To argue otherwise makes a person appear either ignorant or foolish in view of the evidence. This should not even be a point of debate.
What that headship entails may be a point for discussion, but not the fact of whether or not headship is an issue in the passage.

One thing Rodriguez got right about the passage: it “provides instructions about gender differentiation” which was “established by the Lord at creation” and “reaffirmed in the church among those providing leadership to it.” This is something many are in denial about, but this admission is a starting point toward understanding what the passage is really talking about. At the same time, Rodriguez attempts to limit the counsel only to

Edwin Reynolds’ Response to Rodríguez

those who are leading out, which he assumes include both males and females, based on the fact that verses 4 and 5 speak about men and women praying and prophesying. However, neither praying nor prophesying are said to be limited to spiritual leaders in Scripture. In fact anyone can pray, and Paul counsels everyone in 1 Cor 14:1 to desire the gift of prophecy, so in reality there is no precedent for Rodriguez’s conclusion that Paul is talking only about spiritual leaders in 1 Cor 11. Paul would certainly not have meant to imply that, which is why he uses the expression “every man” and “every woman” (vv. 4,5 NKJV). Instead, Paul is talking about how to conduct oneself in a public worship setting with appropriate gender distinctions based on the headship principle he has just established in verse 3. “Praying or prophesying” (NKJV) is his way of indicating active participation in a public worship setting. There is no basis for assuming that women are functioning as worship leaders in this passage. In fact, the force of the entire passage is to distinguish between male and female roles in worship, not to equate them. Careful exegesis, not eisegesis, is needed here.

Rodriguez also argues that by wearing a veil the woman is glorifying God, not her husband or other men. However, Paul makes a different point. He begins by stating that the head of woman is the man (v. 3), and her anatomical head should be covered because it represents her metaphorical head, the man, whom she dishonors if her anatomical head is uncovered (v. 5)—or unveiled, as Rodriguez says. The man, on the other hand, is under the headship of Christ and dishonors Christ, his metaphorical head, if his anatomical head is covered (v. 4). Teresa Reeve recognizes this, explaining, “Metaphorically, Paul insisted, it was not only their own anatomical heads that were being shamed.” She understands that the anatomical heads of men and women represented the respective metaphorical heads spoken of in verse 3.28

When it comes to the matter of who is being glorified, Paul declares in verse 7, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man” (ESV). This means that the man brings glory to God by not covering his head, while the woman brings glory to the man by covering her head. Paul adds that this is because “man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (vv. 8-9). Woman was not created for God’s glory but for man’s glory, while man was created for God’s glory. (I did not say that; Paul did.) So to argue that the woman was veiled to bring glory to God is not at all what Paul was saying. It expressed, rather, her submissive relationship to the man, who is her head, thus bringing glory to him for whom she was created. That is why Paul continues in verse 10 to add, “That is why a wife [or woman] ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” (ESV). The New Jerusalem Bible reads, “And this is why it is right for a woman to wear on her head a sign of the authority over her.” The authority over her is the metaphorical or spiritual head, which is the man. One does not have to like the implications in order to understand what the text is trying to say. Our first responsibility is to listen carefully to the text rather than bringing our own cultural baggage to the text and rejecting the message

28Reeve, 32.

Edwin Reynolds’ Response to Rodríguez

because it seems unpalatable to our modern independent thinking. The text did not present any major exegetical problems to earlier generations.

On the authority mentioned in verse 10 which a woman has on/over her head, Rodriguez asserts, “This is about the authority a woman has and not about the authority someone else has
over her. It could be that ‘her head’ means ‘her own person.’” This assertion is made without any justification or explanation, but he needs it to mean that in order to support his own view. In fact, “her head” cannot mean “her own person,” because this is the eighth time the word kephalē has been used in the passage, and in none of the previous usages does it mean one’s own person. It refers either to one’s anatomical head itself or to one’s metaphorical head, so also here. Here it is her anatomical head that is being referred to. Verse 10 is the antithesis of verse 7, which tells why a man should not cover his anatomical head; verse 10 tells why a woman should cover her anatomical head. After adding a caveat in verses 11-12 about why man and woman are not independent of one another but ultimately interdependent, Paul continues the discussion in verses 13-15 of why a woman should not pray to God with her anatomical head uncovered, again pointing to the universal practice from the time of creation, when “her hair was given to her for a covering” (NKJV). Against Rodriguez’s assertion, several versions demonstrate an opposite understanding of the meaning. The New Jerusalem Bible, already cited above, reads, “And this is why it is right for a woman to wear on her head a sign of the authority over her.” The McDonald Idiomatic Translation reads, “This is the reason a woman ought to have a symbol visible on her head that she is under authority.” The New Living Translation reads, “For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.” It seems evident that Rodriguez’s assertion lacks strong support.

Rodriguez closes his section on 1 Cor 11:2-16 with the observation, “This [passage] is about equality in both essence and function. First Corinthians 11:2-16 is not about the headship of male church leaders over women in church.” Again, this is a mere assertion which has not been satisfactorily demonstrated. I believe that a better reading of the evidence supports an opposite view. Rodriguez himself admits that the passage “provides instructions about gender differentia-tion” which was “established by the Lord at creation” and “reaffirmed in the church.” If there is equality in both essence and function, what kind of gender differentiation is Paul providing instructions about? Surely he is not talking about biological or anatomical differences. A plain reading of the passage reveals that he is indeed talking about proper gender roles and functions. as established by the Lord at creation and now being reaffirmed by Paul in a church setting. While Rodriguez does not want to admit this, since it weakens his attack on a headship based on gender, it is really impossible to get around and still be honest with the evidence.

As Rodriguez moves into 1 Cor 14, he accuses me of introducing into the passage the idea of headship from 1 Cor 11. However, it should be noted that one cannot entirely separate what is happening in the church in chapter 14 from what is happening in the church in chapter 11. In both chapters the problem is disorder in the worship setting, into

Edwin Reynolds’ Response to Rodríguez

which Paul is introducing orderly solutions based on biblical principles. While the problem in chapter 11 is that of showing proper respect for role relationships in terms of head coverings or veils and the problem in chapter 14 is that of speaking out in a disruptive fashion in the worship service, the solution is essentially the same. In chapter 11, Paul appeals primarily to the Genesis account of creation to show what the proper basis is for male-female relationships as it pertains to headship and submission. In chapter 14, Paul appeals to the principle of submission found in the Law (the Pentateuch): “For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says” (ESV). This is probably a reference back to the teaching already cited from Gen 1-2 which shows the headship of the man as the first in creation order with the woman made subsequently for the glory of the man. It is the principle of submission as taught in the Law that is the solution to the problem in both chapters and is the key to understanding headship in this passage, although admittedly it is implicit rather than explicit. Yet in the context of chapter 11, it is to be under-stood in the larger context of the epistle. Making the context even clearer, Paul goes on to add, “If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church” (ESV). Surely, this statement makes clear that the home, with their own husbands, is the proper place for them to speak up and ask questions. There are two primary issues at hand here: one is submission and the other is order. The first is in service to the second. In order to promote order in the worship service, submission is required on the part of women, as the Law requires, and that is accomplished in the context by being silent and not speaking out in the worship service but taking their questions home and asking their own husbands in the context of the marriage relationship, still in submission. While it is true that men also must behave in orderly ways in the worship service, as outlined in verses 26-33a and as summarized in verse 40, including being silent at certain appropriate times, there is no demand here for men to be in submission. This is not a reciprocal requirement. Only the women are required to demonstrate submission, and that not to each other but implicitly in the presence of men and of the whole assembly. Otherwise, why would Paul add that they should ask their own husbands at home? This is an intended contrast with other men in the worship setting.

Rodriguez addresses only 1 Cor 14:33-34, omitting discussion of verse 35, which is still an important part of the discussion. I believe, as do a number of other scholars, that verses 36-38 are also still addressing the same issue. For those who would disagree with Paul on this matter, he continues discussing the alternative, beginning with the alternative pronoun ē (“or”): “Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?” (NKJV). The alternative to conforming to Paul’s requirements set forth here was to argue that they were either the source or the sole proprietors of the word of God, that only they, not Paul, had the truth. This would be a challenge to Paul’s own prophetic authority, as some today are challenging Paul’s authority on this issue. Paul’s response is significant: “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (NKJV). Paul had already written that the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets (v. 32), and now he applies that to their claim to have the prophetic gift. His gift was prior to theirs and so

Edwin Reynolds’ Response to Rodríguez

becomes the test for their claim, not vice versa. If Paul received a commandment from the Lord Himself, as he claims, then their claim is invalid, since they want to proclaim something different from what he has commanded. Nor can anyone today claim to have new wisdom or insight which declares Paul’s teaching null and void, or at least no longer relevant. Paul began this discussion of the role of women in the church setting with the words, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches” (ESV), making it clear that he was not talking only about a local situation in Corinth but a broader principle that applies everywhere. He closes the discussion with the words, “If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (ESV), implying that no other practice will be tolerated in the churches. It is similar to how he closed his discussion in 11:16: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (ESV), referring to variants from the prescribed instructions. Clearly, Paul did not see any room for discussion of alternative practices based on different local or cultural settings. Every contrary argument is preemptively cut off.

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Response to Angel Rodriguez, “Evaluation of the Arguments Used by Those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Ministry” (TOSC January 2014, Baltimore, MD). _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My Dear Brother Angel:

Having respected you as a teacher and administrator for a long time, I attentively listened to your spirited presentation and I carefully read your response paper “Evaluation of the Arguments Used by Those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Ministry” (TOSC January 2014, Baltimore, MD).

Please allow me to share with you the following observations in a spirit of love and respect. The tone of written communication often conceals such Christian attitudes, especially in a context of disagreement. The views expressed in this response are my own and do not necessarily reflect a consensus of sorts.

[Note: To facilitate the readability for a larger audience I refer to the author of the above paper in the third person as “Rodriguez”.] _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Summary of Concerns

1. An artificial separation of home and church, undermining explicit gender roles in both

2. A false accusation of fear tactics in the face of a serious assault on gender definitions

3. An inadequate, philosophical approach to eternal submission

4. A questionable utilization of unreliable contextual reconstructions, at the expense of explicit biblical contexts

5. An insufficient reading of Ellen White, at the expense of key Spirit of Prophecy data
6. An unbiblical approach to the understanding of Phoebe as “diakoness”
7. An undermining of biblical manhood, especially in regard to Adam’s pre- and post-fall role 8. An undermining of biblical womanhood
9. Gender-inclusive quoting of Ellen White materials that are originally gender-specific
10. A general disregard for explicit gender-specificity in biblical texts

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Detailed Response

1. Male headship in the home and in the church

“It is not clear how they methodologically move from the universal and exclusive male headship over women to male headship in the church.” (Rodriguez, pp. 2, l8-19)

This move from home to church is made by Paul in 1 Tim 3:5, where the apostle asks the rhetorical question “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? (1Tim 3:5 NKJV).1

The positive nature of “ruling” via the parallel of “taking care of” the church of God is aptly defined in the life-saving incident of the Good Samaritan, where the identical term [ἐπιμελέομαι epimeleomai] is employed:

“So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you’” (Lk 10:34-35).

Paul’s idea of male leadership in the church and in the home allows for no abuse of power, love-less governance, or any other form of corrupt conduct. The very list of character attributes that the apostle introduces for eligibility of eldership would dependably filter out unqualified candidates.

This connection between home and church is addressed and delineated in my paper (“Adam, Where Are You?” – TOSC July 2013) on pp. 16ff.

Ironically, proponents of women’s ordination persistently argue for the Garden of Eden – Adam and Eve’s first home – being a sanctuary. In this sense, Rodriguez’ concern here is unwarranted:

“I have to wonder whether when the couple goes to church the husband stops being the head of the wife. The question may sound silly but it raises the issue of the logistics of this arrangement” (Rodriguez, p. 49 fn 101).

Surely a minimal degree of common sense will govern husband-wife relationships at home and at church. A couple and churches will figure out the appropriate dynamics between husband-wife vs elder- married female church member.

Interestingly, Jesus rebuked the Sadducees when they denied the veracity of the resurrection on mere practical grounds (Mt 22:23-33). Their perceived reality (a woman cannot be the wife of seven husbands) created an artificial conundrum (the resurrection would result in the illogical scenario in which said woman would become the wife of seven husbands) that would not allow for the veracity of

1 Unless otherwise noted, Scripture references are taken from the New King James Version of the Bible (NKJV), 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Bold emphases here and elsewhere are mine.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the resurrection – a fallacious approach to Scripture that Jesus effectively dismantled. Practical concerns do not alter biblical truths. Truth dictates practice.

Earlier Jesus had already refused to get cornered by case scenarios in regards to marriage and divorce. Instead, He pointed the Pharisees back to the creation concept (Mt 19:3-12, esp. 8b).

When I became an Adventist as a teenager, no one had to explain to me how to keep the Sabbath holy even if I didn’t own any cattle (Ex 20:10), nor did my neighbor have to acquire a donkey so I could avoid coveting the animal according to the 10th commandment (Ex 20:17). The Bible does not have to spell out every minute detail of faith and practice. We don’t want to repeat the experience of first- century casuistry that caused Jesus so many problems.

2. Fear Tactics

Rodriguez rejects Bohr’s method of “fear” as a reasonable hermeneutical method, and critiques Bohr’s use of Grudem. After all, Grudem has not accepted the Sabbath (see Rodriguez, p. 3). Based on this approach we could not cite any human outside of Scripture or Ellen White. Luther did not accept baptism by immersion nor the Sabbath, yet we cite Luther freely in our scholarly and devotional writing. This is an unfair and inconsistent restriction of scholarly appeal. Authors quoted in papers supporting women’s ordination also espouse theologies that are incongruent with Adventist theology.

(On a personal note, the TOSC process might have benefited if we had indeed started with a Sola Scriptura methodology, and only then added Ellen White, long before consulting and including secondary literature. This highly academic, paper-based approach muddied the waters considerably. Prayer and Bible study should have been our initial, pioneer-modeled approach from the beginning).

At the same time I maintain that the consequences of women’s ordination bode a fearful future for the remnant church. Bohr does not engage in irresponsible fear mongering. In this debate I detect a reasonable cause for fearful concern: Why do we find proponents of gay marriage more likely in the pro-ordination camp than in the anti-ordination camp? (I suspect an ad hoc anonymous survey of the TOSC committee would indeed confirm this!). Is this a mere coincidence? We do not need to statistically prove that all denominations who promote women’s ordination end up with a gay-inclusive theology (and practice). The trend has been established (see Holmes, Tip of the Iceberg, et al). Thus contrary to Rodriguez’ claim (p. 3, fn 2), the warning has been on the table all along: mis-applying Scripture in this area will open the floodgates to a torrent of equally unscriptural practices. It is difficult to understand his claim that “There is no way to establish any valid correlation between these and ordaining women to the ministry” (Rodriguez, p. 3 fn 2). A casual perusal of websites such as www.spectrummagazine.org will prove contrary to Rodriguez’ denial of this linkage. In short, my fear remains, and I, for one, will continue to articulate this fear to stem the tide.

Consequently I have not been convinced to retract my footnote 211 of my July 2013 TOSC paper, which I shall reproduce here for convenience:

fn 211 D. W. Jones, "Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?" Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 13. Though frequently denied by those who espouse egalitarian hermeneutics, this dynamic must be addressed based on the mere historical patterns

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

of especially non-evangelical churches. The danger is evidenced, for example, in the soft endorsement of a pro-homosexual movie ("Seventh-Gay Adventists") by key Adventist thought leaders. Ellen White was equally alarmed when she cautions, "I was referred to Romans 1:18-32, as a true description of the world previous to the second appearing of Christ" (Appeal to Mothers, 27). See also Wellesley Muir, Daughters of an Inheritance (Roseville: Amazing Facts, 2010), and C. Raymond Holmes, The Tip of an Iceberg (Wakefield, MI: Pointer, 1994) in this regard; http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/03/lutherans-elect-first-openly-gay-bishop/, and most recently, Daneen Aker’s incredulous blog entry in Spectrum: Daneen Akers, “Adventists Against Prop 8 Statement,” http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2013/06/26/adventists-against-prop-8-statement, Internet. Accessed July 1, 2013. [Sorke, “Adam, Where Are You?” – TOSC July 2013]

In short, if the ordination of women as elders or pastors is not biblical, implementing such a practice by the Adventist church would naturally open the door to other unbiblical practices. Error breeds error. Therefore the legitimate inclusion of fear, in the full biblical depth of the term, is not fear-mongering but the voicing of a legitimate concern. Abandonment of simple biblical standards should be a genuine cause of concern among our church members.

“But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (2 Cor 11:3).

3. Eternal Submission

Although not part of my paper nor the focus of our committee, I shall briefly address the matter of eternal submission within the Godhead. Overall, Rodriguez’ arguments are of philosophical rather than biblical nature.2 This profound topic would require a careful biblical analysis, along with the testimony of Ellen White, not human logic and speculation.

Rodriguez (p. 9ff.) creates a logical fallacy when he denies the reasonable possibility of simultaneous created submission and voluntary submission. This is precisely where Lucifer fell short: though created in submission to God, he nonetheless had to choose to submit. The two submissions are not mutually exclusive despite Rodriguez’ persistent claims. For example, by nature and divine arrangement (Ex 20:12) children exist in subordination to their parents but they still need to submit by choice.

Functional and natural subordination can be illustrated by a grammatical peculiarity in Paul’s writings to the Galatians. In Paul’s words, “If we live in the Spirit [reality], let us also walk in the Spirit” [imperative] (Gal 5:25). We are not robots. Our established status in the Spirit does not render Paul’s mandate for us to act accordingly illogical. A first-class conditional sentence such as Gal 5:25a, in which the protasis [assumption] “if” can be assumed to be true, can still solicit a pending apodosis (“then”) – in this case a hortatory subjunctive: “Let us”. Simply put, the Galatians, despite their theological status in the Spirit, still have to choose to act upon that status in daily living.

Jesus Christ Himself submitted to the plan of redemption, but what struggle we witness in the Garden of Gethsemane despite His assumed and established status (see, for example, Jn 8:28; 14:28, 31).

2 For example, Rodriguez categorically stated during the TOSC Jan 2014 presentation that “God does not have a Son”. Such statements fall outside the realm of careful biblical analysis.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following quotes are quite insightful in regard to Father-Son submission:

“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds” (Heb 1:1-2).

“The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love” (PP 36).

“There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer’s envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer’s deceptions” (PP 38).

“The Son was seated on the throne with the Father, and the heavenly throng of holy angels was gathered around them. The Father then made known that it was ordained by Himself that Christ, His Son, should be equal with Himself; so that wherever was the presence of His Son, it was as His own presence. The word of the Son was to be obeyed as readily as the word of the Father. His Son He had invested with authority to command the heavenly host” (1SP 17-18).

“There was contention among the angels. Satan and his sympathizers were striving to reform the government of God. They were discontented and unhappy because they could not look into His unsearchable wisdom and ascertain His purposes in exalting His Son Jesus, and endowing Him with such unlimited power and command. They rebelled against the authority of the Son” (1SP 19).

“Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shown with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race” (EW 126).

In no way do we diminish the doctrine of the trinity as understood by our Fundamental Beliefs, nor do we introduce unbiblical variations in the nature of the Godhead.

4. 1 Corinthians 11

Is 1 Cor 11:2-16 “notoriously difficult” because of Paul’s difficult style of writing, or because of our resistance to biblical authority and our cultural aversion to hierarchy? I see the claim of difficulty utilized by scholars in relation to a lot of texts, if not the Bible at large. Everything is “difficult” to understand in academia. Does the layperson stand a chance to understand Scripture then?

I am personally convinced the issue is not exclusively a matter of hermeneutics but one of submission to biblical authority, especially a submission that runs counter to the emotions of contemporary culture. It

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

is simply untenable that both sides claim respect for the biblical text, supposedly sharing a common methodology and “high regard for Scripture”, but arriving at such vastly different conclusions. Thus I suspect that the culprit of our differences lies not just in our method of Bible study but also in our willingness to submit to the plain reading of the biblical text.

1 Cor 11:2-16 follows a principle-application pattern, in which males and females share some privileges while leaving gender-differentiations tightly intact. The thrust of the passage is a creation-based differentiation of human gender based on a divine model and example, with subsequent applications for the life of the church.

(Interestingly, when I merely hinted at the possibility of a cultural aversion by proponents of women’s ordination to some of Paul’s texts, my pro-ordination small group vehemently resisted and did not want to pursue this possibility.)

5. Context and Biblical Interpretation

“It would appear that the fear of over-contextualization does not allow them to take the cultural context seriously” (Rodriguez, p. 4 l3-14).

This does not accurately reflect my approach to Scripture.

The question is not just one of over-contextualization but rather the danger of speculative mis- contextualization, especially without scholarly consensus. Such misuse of context ultimately comes at the expense of a reasonable interpretation of the Bible. The cultural context of 1 Timothy does not threaten my interpretation at all. The problem lies in the fact that I find not only a solid scholarly case against the cultural reconstruction by proponents of women’s ordination, but the biblical context does not match the proposed cultural context.

For example, S. M. Baugh’s 1999 article “Cult Prostitution in New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal” effectively counters the common Ephesian theory proposed by proponents of women’s ordination. Baugh’s conclusion:

Despite the received opinion to the contrary, I do not believe that cult prostitution was practiced in Greek (and Roman) regions of the NT era. The evidence thought to support this institution in the cities of Corinth and Ephesus was found wanting in our brief survey of Strabo and a few other authors. Finally, we looked at some of the positive evidence from Ephesus to show that the priestesses of Artemis - wrongly thought by many today to be a fertility or mother goddess - were no more than daughters of noble families, whose terms of office involved them in the honorary public roles and the financial obligations which typified priestly offices in Greek state cults. A priestess of Artemis compares better with a Rose Bowl queen or with Miss Teen America than with a cult prostitute. Indeed, there are some hints in the literature (e.g. Xenophon of Ephesus) that the girl- priestesses may have been chosen because they best resembled the chaste maiden-goddess.

Hopefully Ephesian cult prostitutes will soon disappear from our literature and from our pulpits, for these chimera exist only in the minds of people today, not in the past. This is particularly desirable, since the issue has moved beyond the realm of purely historical

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

accuracy into that of ecclesiastical controversies over women’s ordination; indeed, the false notion of Ephesian cult prostitutes is a central prop for a radical reinterpretation of 1 Tim 2:9– 15 which must now be given serious reexamination.3

I addressed this danger of misinterpretation in my TOSC 7/13 paper especially on pages 13, 17, and 23ff. In short, the Ephesian situation is a) difficult to reconstruct, and b) the relevance of such tentative reconstructions for the interpretation of 1 Tim 2-3 is questionable.

Early on Rodriguez voices a similar methodological concern when reading our biblical position:

“Once we remove a passage from its immediate context we are hermeneutically on our own, without interpretational controls” (Rodriguez, p. 6 l4-5).

I agree! I therefore carefully put the passage in its gender-oscillating context (which Rodriguez minimizes, pp. 58ff.). Rodriguez’ two arguments against my observation of Paul’s specific gender- oscillation are not convincing:

1) Although the indefinite pronoun tis could be read generically, in the context of the person seeking eldership needing to be a “husband of one wife”, this pronoun takes on the masculine gender. In Timothy 3, Paul is clearly addressing men, not women.

2) Naturally Paul’s counsel about prayer and jewelry extends beyond men and women, respectively, but Rodriguez is missing the point entirely here. The apostle is addressing specific genders: prayer must have been an issue with the men; jewelry must have been an issue with the women. How else could Paul have spoken gender-specifically? Rodriguez’ reading of the text does not allow for such gender-specific writing. He himself asks “whether we are going to study each passage on its own merits before trying to harmonize them or not” (p. 17 fn 28)? Indeed, Paul’s own merits are gender-specific here. We have to allow the Bible writers express themselves in a gender-specific manner if they wish to do so.

Again, two observations are in order:

1) What if the immediate cultural context is falsely reconstructed?

2) I provide the immediate context of 1 Tim 2-3 by carefully delineating a gender-specific structure in the passage (Sorke, TOSC 7/13, pp. 18ff.). Ironically, this gender-specificity is persistently ignored or downplayed by proponents of women’s ordination. How else could Paul have written gender- specifically? Gender-specificity seems impossible under the cultural-contextual model. I find this silencing of the Bible highly problematic – and, coming from an Adventist scholar, surprising.

Cultural-contextual reconstructions end up paralyzing the actual biblical text. In the end, “husband of one wife” becomes “wife of one husband”. Cultural contextualization at the expense of the clear testimony of the text and unwarranted linguistic stretches freely reinterprets the biblical message to the point that the Bible is obscured rather than explained or clarified. Since such interpretations affect the

3 S. M. Baugh, “Cult Prostitution In New Testament Ephesus: A Reappraisal,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3 (1999): 459-460. Also available at http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_ephesus_baugh.html, Internet.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

fundamental creation order of gender, this is no small matter, and I have to openly reject it. We are not just dealing with matters of interpretation and opinions, but with a core biblical message of gender- relations and gender-roles in the church.

This approach to Scripture, in which culture trumps the biblical canon, could easily annihilate our trademark rationale for Sabbath-keeping. After all, the cultural dominance of even a secular Sunday renders the Adventist peculiarity of Sabbath-keeping an inconvenient burden at best: Sabbath easily becomes Sunday, then, as the culturally observed day of rest. And Christian denominations have long argued against the specificity of seventh-day Sabbath-keeping based on the resurrection. Artificial reconstructions and reliance on dubious contexts can also render baptism by immersion meaningless. Additionally, our dietary restrictions are reduced (and dismissed) as a quaint vestige of our Jewish heritage. Scripture must remain our primary voice for the discernment of God’s will.

6. Phoebe

Rodriguez charges that opponents of women’s ordination argue incoherently in regard to Phoebe’s status in the Cenchrean church. In his understanding, opponents of women’s ordination would argue that “the phrase ‘Phoebe, deacon of the church in Cenchrea’ does not mean what it says because, according to 1 Timothy 3:12, a deacon must be male” (Rodriguez, p. 7 l1-2).

This is a curious accusation, ignoring the semantic spectrum of the term “deacon” (see Sorke, TOSC 7/13 pp. 42ff.). Suddenly opponents of women’s ordination are not allowed to use context, word studies, etc. to establish the meaning of a text? After all, the Greek text does not contain the English word deacon; Greek only contains Greek words, which offer a variety of translation possibilities: servant, minister, helper, etc. Phoebe is not a deacon in the Greek; she is a diakonos, which grammatically occupies both the masculine and feminine gender. As such she could be a deaconess, a servant, a helper, etc. But as a woman she cannot be a male deacon. By the very definition of the term a deacon in English is a male.4

“We should not place biblical text[s] in opposition to each other but look for a proper harmonization that respects or honors the contribution of each passage. We need to listen to each passage on its own terms” (Rodriguez, p. 7 l3-5). Which one is it? Do we seek “harmonization” or do we “listen to each passage on its own terms”? In the majority of cases, diakonos does not refer to an office, but to the servant-nature of the person (including Tychicus, Eph 6:21, and Timothy himself in 1 Tim 4:6, both associated with a local church but not deacons in the sense of the office).

Ironically, Rodriguez commits the same methodological faux pas that opponents of ordination are accused of: using one text to silence another. By relegating the phrases “husband of one wife” and “wife of one husband” to the exclusive sphere of character, Rodriguez ignores the key component of gender, silencing the gender-specificity of the text with an interpretation. In effect, Rodriguez preempts the

4 His example of an inconsistent “plain reading of a text” (1 Cor 14:33-34 and 1 Tim 2:11) among opponents of women’s ordination proves insufficient. In this striking oversimplification of our hermeneutic Rodriguez ignores that we recognize the hermeneutical principle of canonical totality – taking the whole Scripture into consideration, not just an isolated verse. 1 Cor 14:33-34 can easily be taken as an absolute statement from the perspective of Paul and for a particular situation: when the service is under way and the speaker is speaking, no woman should be speaking. Of course, there are times when men should not be speaking either, as expressed in 1 Cor 14:28. But if women are talking when they shouldn’t then they should be called to silence in the context of a worship service. The context of 1 Cor 14:33-34 is that someone is speaking already.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

original writer of any chance to express himself gender-specifically, and consequently we no longer “listen to each passage on its own terms”. This is not Sola Scripture, but interpretation based on assumptions.

I therefore do not understand Rodriguez’ suggestion that Phoebe’s depiction as a deacon creates an untenable contradiction (Rodriguez, p. 61, esp. fn 135) for opponents of women’s ordination. This charge hinges on a profound misunderstanding of Greek lexical grammar: again the term diakonos is both masculine and feminine. Since Phoebe is a woman, she cannot be a male deacon – a logical impossibility. She can be a deaconess, of course, but Phoebe cannot be a male deacon, just as she cannot be the husband of one wife. This is not silencing one text with another (Rodriguez, p. 7, l2), but taken the biblical record seriously.

7. The Role of Ellen White in the Interpretation of Scripture

Some pro-ordination presenters at the July 2013 TOSC publicly omitted Ellen White altogether and underlined the reason for their intentional omission. In this they ignored White’s explicit perspective on a particular subject matter. In other words, her prophetic voice was excluded from an investigation even though she had direct comments on texts/topics under consideration, comments which were contrary to the view expressed by these presenters.5 This omission led to contrary interpretations, which, in my mind, is not an acceptable Adventist method of interpretation: it ignores, even silences, the prophetic voice in the remnant church. If Ellen White has said something on a specific text or topic we must pay attention to it and take that existing data into consideration.

No methodology has to be explicated in regard to the use of Ellen White, and no “canon within a canon” (Rodriguez, p. 9) is being introduced. We quote Ellen White when she provides specific data on a particular text or topic. A certain quantity of quotes betrays no disregard for the biblical text but seeks to do justice to the plethora of data available from our prophetic heritage.6 It is in this sense that her statement on the relation between Scripture and her Testimonies is to be understood: “The Bible must be your counselor. Study it and the testimonies God has given; for they never contradict his Word” (Letter 106, 1907; 3SM 32).

The following quotes are particularly insightful as to the role of Ellen White for our understanding of truth. Her writings certainly exceed mere devotional supplementation:

“As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point, under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things, and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays” (GW

302; 3SM 32).

5 For example the abandonment of ordination altogether was suggested, in direct contradiction to Ellen White’s description of ordination and her defined explications of its function (see esp. AA 160-161, and “He Ordained the Twelve” – Desire of Ages, ch. 25), based on the ordination of the Twelve.
6 According to Rodriguez, “Their main hermeneutical problem is to a large extent their desire to prove their point and to undermine the arguments of those who support the ordination of women to the ministry” (p. 9, l10-12). This is a case of confusing method with outcome – of course a hermeneutic that yields vastly different interpretative results will challenge “the arguments of those who support the ordination of women”, and, in the context of the TOSC, will seek “to prove their point”. Since two viewpoints prevail, this was necessarily practiced by both sides, including Rodriguez’ own paper.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“I have kept in all my journeys that should come before the people if essential, even if I did not write another line. I want that which is deemed worthy to appear, for the Lord has given me much light that I want the people to have; for there is instruction that the Lord has given me for his people. It is light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors and to specify what is truth. The Lord has revealed many things pointing out the truth, thus saying, ‘This is the way, walk ye in it’” (Letter 127, 1910; 3SM 32).

“Serious errors in doctrine and practice were cherished, and some were ready to condemn all who would not accept their views. God revealed these errors to me in vision and sent me to His erring children to declare them; but in performing this duty I met with bitter opposition and
reproach” (5T 655).

“In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of prophets and apostles. In these days He speaks to them by the testimonies of His Spirit. There was never a time when God instructed His people more earnestly than He instructs them now concerning His will and the course that He would have them pursue” (4T 147, 148 (1876); 5T 661).

“I have been looking over the Testimonies given for Sabbathkeepers and I am astonished at the mercy of God and His care for His people in giving them so many warnings, pointing out their dangers, and presenting before them the exalted position which He would have them occupy.”

Much is at stake here, because . . .

“If they would keep themselves in His love and separate from the world, He would cause His special blessings to rest upon them and His light to shine round about them. Their influence for good might be felt in every branch of the work and in every part of the gospel field. But if they fail to meet the mind of God, if they continue to have so little sense of the exalted character of the work as they have had in the past, their influence and example will prove a terrible curse. They will do harm and only harm. The blood of precious souls will be found upon their garments” (5T 662).

“Brother J would confuse the mind by seeking to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an addition to the word of God, but in this he presents the matter in a false light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His word, to give them a clearer understanding of it.” [4T 246 (1876).] The word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some who profess to make the word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the word that they have neglected to follow” (2T 455). The word of God abounds in general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention more especially to these principles” (4T 323; cf. 5T 663).

“My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bible, were only according to their opinion of the Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory” (2SG 98).

Finally, it should be pointed out that 8T succinctly – and sufficiently - clarifies her role:

“I have a work of great responsibility to do—to impart by pen and voice the instruction given me, not alone to Seventh-day Adventists, but to the world. I have published many books, large and small, and some of these have been translated into several languages. This is my work—to open the Scriptures to others as God has opened them to me” (8T 236).

White continues, “I am not to appear before the people as holding any other position than that of a messenger with a message” (8T 237). Interestingly, Ellen White was never called Elder or Pastor White. In Adventist parlance this would refer to James White.

8. The Pre-Fall Headship of Adam

“The arguments used by the opponents to women’s ordination to support the pre-fall headship of Adam are under the influence of evangelical scholars” (Rodriguez, p. 17 l4-5).

This is a feeble assumption at best and a false accusation at worst. On my part I can attest that most of my time in preparation of my paper was spent in Bible study, not secondary (including evangelical) sources. Those were only incorporated later to respond to specific pro-ordination arguments. I thought from the start that the biblical record was sufficient and sufficiently clear, supported by Ellen White statements.

Denying a pre-fall headship reveals a blind spot: a limited reading of Genesis 1-2 which does not allow the New Testament to speak informatively and conclusively about the meaning of the Old Testament, including a curious indifference to 1 Tim 2:13. During one small group session (TOSC 1/14) a proponent of women’s ordination repeatedly attempted to place 1 Tim 2:13a in the post-fall realm of Gen 3 because he just could not accept Paul correctly explaining Genesis. This is forcing a square peg into a round hole, as there is just no way around the fact that Paul appeals to a pre-fall function of Adam in relation to Eve in 1 Tim 2:13. Additionally,

- Adam “mourned that he had permitted Eve to wander from his side” (PP 56)
- Angels had warned Eve of wandering from her husband’s side (PP 53)
- God addressed Adam first (Gen 3:9), even though both hid together (Gen 3:8)
- God explicitly expelled Adam from the Garden (Gen 3:23-24), although both were banned of course

- Paul posits the theological blame on Adam, not Eve (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22)

The undeniable focus of the Bible expresses gender differentiation in creation, articulating a male headship based on sequence, and a corresponding theological priority (as in Rom 5:12-14). In this thinking no one argues for male superiority or excuses abuse in any form; the status of males is one of God-ordained responsibility, not domineering privilege.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In Ephesians 5 (esp. with its climax of Eph 5:23), Paul processes these dynamics most succinctly and practically in his explanation of marriage and the husband’s Christ-like role in relation to his wife. This is male headship par excellence, and so expressed by Paul: “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body (Eph 5:23). Translating “head” as “source” here would not make sense. The biblical teaching of male headship flows from the headship of Christ, both painting a beautifully salvific picture of loving care. Dictatorial abuse and oppression are equally absent in this depiction of gender-specificity.

9. Gender Considerations

“Maleness and femaleness are not functions but who we are” (Rodriguez, p. 23 l6).

Can we realistically differentiate between function and being? Being leads inherently to vastly differentiated functionality, beginning with anatomical and procreative differences and continuing with theological responsibilities (such as the aforementioned fact of Adam, not Eve, being blamed for the fall in Rom 5:14, not Eve).

“This is not about the leading role of the husband within the differentiation” (Rodriguez, p. 23 l9).

We will have to differ on this. Overwhelming evidence by Ellen White, in agreement with Paul’s theology, supports the opposite of Rodriguez’ assertion here. A few examples shall suffice in illustrating the symbiosis between being and functionality:

“God prepared for Adam and Eve a beautiful garden. He provided for them everything their wants required. He planted for them trees of every variety, bearing fruit. With a liberal hand he surrounded them with his bounties—the trees for usefulness and beauty, and the lovely flowers which sprung up spontaneously, and flourished in rich profusion around them, were to know nothing of decay. Adam and Eve were rich indeed. They possessed beautiful Eden. Adam was monarch in this beautiful domain. None can question the fact that Adam was rich. But God knew that Adam could not be happy unless he had employment. Therefore he gave him something to do. He was to dress the garden” (ST April 29, 1875).

This quote is difficult to reconcile with Rodriguez’ attempt to make both Adam and Eve monarchs of Eden, with Adam remaining as exclusive monarch after the fall before he himself sinned (see Rodriguez, pp. 31ff.). Of course Adam functioned as monarch with Eve as a partner, but the term monarch itself indicates a role differential.

“The husband and father is the head of the household. The wife looks to him for love and sympathy and for aid in the training of the children; and this is right. The children are his as well as hers, and he is equally interested in their welfare. The children look to the father for support and guidance; he needs to have a right conception of life and of the influences and associations that should surround his family; above all, he should be controlled by the love and fear of God and by the teaching of His word, that he may guide the feet of his children in the right way.... The father should do his part toward making home happy. Whatever his cares and business perplexities, they should not be permitted to overshadow his family; he should enter his home with smiles and pleasant words. All members of the family center in the father. He is the lawmaker, illustrating in his own manly bearing the sterner virtues: energy,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

integrity, honesty, patience, courage, diligence, and practical usefulness. The father is in one sense the priest of the household, laying upon the altar of God the morning and evening sacrifice” (AH 211-212).

To this end, Adam was created taller than Eve (White, ST January 9, 1879, Art. B, par. 13); and similarly commanding angels are physically taller than their subordinates (EW 145). This speaks of pre- fall headship, even in the physical sense of being. Rodriguez does not accept my post-fall example (of Cain and Abel), but then dismisses pre-fall examples without any explanation (p. 56 l21)!

In this context, Rodriguez assumes that opponents of women’s ordination read something into the biblical text that is not there: “Consequently they do not even try to demonstrate that this is the case; they simply assume that this is so” (Rodriguez, p. 37 l12-13).

This statement reveals that we define “demonstrate” and “assume” differently, along with many other terms we read differently. I do not think Ratsara’s/Bediako’s (nor Peters’) papers are mere assumptions at all. They systematically demonstrate that Adam received a headship role upon creation.

Thus when Rodriguez concludes that “we search in vain for clear evidence in favor of a pre-fall headship in Genesis 1-3,” and opponents of ordination are “importing” headship “into the text from their reading and interpretation of other biblical texts” I humbly disagree. I do not understand how “the suggestion of a pre-fall headship of Adam over Eve creates more theological and doctrinal problems than it seeks to solve and is incompatible with the law of love and service that rules the cosmic kingdom of God” (Rodriguez, p. 40 l12-14). As previously mentioned, Ephesians 5 puts such claims to rest; headship does not preclude love and service but assumes and demands it to the point of sacrificial love, like Christ. Under the paradigm of gender-differentiation the Bible paints a beautiful picture of harmony, self-sacrificing love, and relational priorities. Departing from the biblical model has not resulted in harmonious families in particular, nor in a healthy society at large.

10. The meaning of kephalē in 1 Corinthians 11
The meaning of kephalē as “source” in 1 Cor 11 is highly questionable. Ellen White does not use “head”

as “source” in AH 215:

“The Lord has constituted the husband the head of the wife to be her protector; he is the house- band of the family, binding the members together, even as Christ is the head of the church and the Saviour of the mystical body. Let every husband who claims to love God carefully study the requirements of God in his position. Christ’s authority is exercised in wisdom, in all kindness and gentleness; so let the husband exercise his power and imitate the great Head of the church.” Here White certainly uses “head” not in the sense of source, but authority, both for Christ and for Adam.

Lexica do not identify kephalē as “source” except for fountainheads of rivers, nor does the term lend itself to matters of origin in Eph 5:23f. Likewise Col 1:18 articulates preeminence, not origin.

Schreiner clarifies: “Even if the word kephalē should be defined as ‘source,’ the thrust of Paul’s argument does not change dramatically. For if the term means ‘source,’ women must still wear their hair

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 13 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a certain way or have a head covering because their origin lies in Adam.” In short, “The woman must show that she is ‘the glory of the man’ (1 Cor 11:7).”7

Church members reading 1 Cor 11 will naturally perceive that the metaphoric use of the term “head” is at work in Paul’s writings. I do not think that linguistic and lexical stretches help in understanding the biblical text here.

11. The Ephesian Theory of False Teachers

Rodriguez’ critique that my paper ignores the context and impact of false teachers on Timothy’s church is unfounded (Rodriguez, pp. 47-48). See Sorke, TOSC 7/13 pp. 11-14, which analyzes culture, context, and key words in this regard.

Most significantly, however, is the oversight of the positive term didaskō (“I teach”). This word does not routinely communicate false teaching in the Bible (Greek employed other terms for false teaching) but conveys teaching in the positive sense, as its usages throughout Paul’s letters confirm (Rom 2:21; 12:7; 1 Cor 4:17; 11:14; Gal 1:12; Eph 4:21; Col 1:28; 2:7; 3:16; 2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 2:12!; 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2). The only exception is Tit 1:11 – thus 15 out of 16 occurrences of “teaching” [didaskō] are positive. (In Revelation 2:20 didaskō does occur in a negative context: that of the woman Jezebel teaching the Israelites in immorality and idol worship).

But rather than reviewing Köstenberger’s detailed rebuttal of an Ephesian Theory of false teachers, I will voice a philosophical concern with the interpretation of Scripture based on speculative reconstructions of context. Such reconstructions of a perceived background render the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura void. Even informed laypersons are no longer able to discern the true meaning of the Bible by themselves. Scripture no longer interprets Scripture; instead, reliance on the expert theologian becomes necessary since the text no longer means what it says. We do not suggest a wooden literalistic reading of the text, slavishly constricted by isolated phrases out of context, as is so often insinuated. But a de-sophisticated reading of the text does submit to the authority of Scripture, which routinely challenges conventional wisdom and contemporary sensitivities. A “plain reading” of the text will often confront the reader with counter-cultural mandates and uncomfortable implications, contrary to established secular paradigms.

12. Male Headship in the Home and in the Church

“The author does not explain how he moved from male universal headship to the specific headship of the elder in the church, who, by the way, is not mentioned in the passage” (Rodriguez, p. 48 l7-9). “Male headship in the church is not found in Scripture.” (Rodriguez, p. 49 l10)

This is an astonishing statement in light of these texts:

“I urge you, brethren-- you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints--that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us” (1 Corinthians 16:15-16).

7 Thomas Schreiner, Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), 404.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17).

“Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Tit 2:15).

“Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17).

If Gal 3:28 is the most misapplied text in this debate, 1 Tim 3:5 has to be the most overlooked: “For if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?” (1Tim 3:5).

“And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake.” (1Thess 5:12-13)

Rodriguez quotes Ellen White here, “The husband is the head of the family, as Christ is the head of the church” (1T 307). Her admonition that “Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church” (ST Jan 27, 1890) requires more analysis than Rodriguez offers. In context, White speaks against members depending on ministers for doing the bulk of the work, for relying on the minister in matters that should be accomplished by members. It is in this sense that “the members of the body of Christ have a part to act”, and conversely, ministers should not “boss around” church members in the abusive sense of the term.

The fact that Christ is our one priest in Heaven does not negate the priestly function of husbands in the home. Singular quotes require the full counsel of inspiration for proper understanding.

Furthermore, is there no headship function in Paul’s description of elder responsibility in Titus 1:5-16? “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you” (Tit 1:5).

Rodriguez’ concise claim also ignores the origin of the church and its leadership in the 12 (male) apostles. One should note the use of the term “authority” in Ellen White’s perspective below:

Before being sent forth as missionaries to the heathen world, these apostles were solemnly dedicated to God by fasting and prayer and the laying on of hands. Thus they were authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to perform the rite of baptism and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority. The Christian church was at this time entering upon an important era. The work of proclaiming the gospel message among the Gentiles was now to be prosecuted with vigor; and as a result the church was to be strengthened by a great ingathering of souls. The apostles who had been appointed to lead out in this work would be exposed to suspicion, prejudice, and jealousy. Their teachings concerning the breaking down of “the middle wall of partition” (Ephesians 2:14) that had so long separated the Jewish and the Gentile world, would naturally subject them to the charge of heresy, and their authority as ministers of the gospel would be questioned by many zealous, believing Jews. God foresaw the difficulties that His servants would be called to meet, and, in order that their work should be above challenge, He instructed the church by revelation to set them apart publicly to the work of the ministry. Their ordination was a public

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

recognition of their divine appointment to bear to the Gentiles the glad tidings of the gospel. Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and the ceremony of the laying on of hands added no new grace or virtual qualification. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one’s authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God (AA 161).

But Rodriguez persistently returns to speak against a headship theology: “Paul mentions the priority of Adam but he does not interpret it. He simply states a biblical fact, Adam was created before Eve. He does not explicitly develop an argument using the phrase” (Rodriguez, p. 55 l16-18).

The careful Bible student will come to a different conclusion: Paul does not interpret his statement of Adam’s priority since that statement is the interpretive rationale for women’s silence. He explicitly states the obvious as his argument. Does Paul’s brevity betray an assumed understanding on the part of his audience? In any case, Paul’s comment on Adam’s priority is not just simply stating a biblical fact. Isolating Paul’s simple explanation in a tightly knit construction (“for”) is problematic and robs the Bible of its logical flow and impact.

One more item should be addressed in this context. Paul reasons that Adam’s creation prior to Eve has consequences for the life and practice of the church. Proponents of women’s ordination persistently criticize this reasoning. Concluding, however, that since animals were created before Adam they should therefore rule over humans is an argument that should be laid to rest (see Rodriguez, p. 17 l4) for the simple reason that humans are of a different created order: God spoke twice on day 6 (Gen 1:24, 26), separating the two biological orders from each other. Paul clearly has the creation sequence of Adam and Eve in mind, not intra-cosmological sequences. Schreiner agrees that the fact “that animals were different from human beings was apparent to any Jewish reader, and hence their creation before human beings is irrelevant.”8

In short, Paul clearly addresses the order within the creation of Adam and Eve; others who go beyond the text immediately create logical fallacies that are not apparent from the Bible itself.

13. “A woman should learn”

Contrary to Rodriguez’ claim (p. 52), the arbitrarily truncated phrase “a woman should learn” is not the main idea of the passage. This is a surprising example of pressing the Scriptures into a meaning clearly not intended or expressed. The thrust of the passage is how a woman should learn – the verse must be cited in entirety. The completion of the phrase “a woman should learn” yields an entirely different reading than Rodriguez suggests. Paul introduces a restriction, not a veiled nod to a Western wish for equality and women’s rights. Reading our biases into the text is eisegesis (“reading into the text what is not there”) to be avoided on the most basic level. The totality of the biblical record speaks clearly on this.

14. “Silence”

“The paper lacks a careful study of the term ‘silence’” (Rodriguez, p. 53).

8 Schreiner, 409.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

See Sorke, TOSC 7/13 pp. 15ff., in which I define “silence” based on its few NT occurrences. I do note that an expansion would be helpful, but I did address the terms. In all contexts, positive or negative, someone ceases to speak when someone else is speaking or should be speaking. Most teachers can identify with students who “hog” a presentation with sermonic comments. They should learn “in silence”. But in the immediate context of 1 Tim 2, women are specifically asked to remain silent not based on circumstances but based on gender. Paul frames his prohibition with universal terms (“I do not permit”; “as in all the churches”), not situationally.

15. The definition of authenteō

Hapax legomena (words only used once in the Bible) are notoriously difficult to define. It is for this reason that I did not expand on its meaning. Extra-biblical occurrences are insightful but can lead to false definitions, just as speculations in regard to culture and wider context can lead to fanciful interpretations (that do not always agree with each other).

In direct context (since “to teach” is a positive term), authenteō does not necessarily “assume a situation of conflict” (Rodriguez, p. 54 l3-4). However, when either verb (teaching + assuming authority) is assumed by a person that is not authorized to assume that activity, naturally it becomes a negative activity. I critique Payne on p. 19 of my paper in this regard, who presses Greek syntax too far to support his point. Teaching and assuming authority are two distinct activities; one does not necessarily define the other.

In the immediate textual context of 1 Tim 3 and Paul’s delineation of eldership, Rodriguez’ claim that “the verb is never used to describe the authority of a church elder” (p. 54 l5-6) cannot be sustained. Is Paul not allowed to use the term as he sees fit? Does his usage of the term require an extant, demonstrable parallel? In fact, “totally unfounded” is puzzling language when Paul’s letter puts the concepts in such close proximity. In fact, we find a clear “to be” framework between the restriction of 1 Tim 2:12 and the context of eldership in 1 Tim 3:2, along with references to teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Tim 3:2.

We must simply state that attempts to define authenteō based on extra-biblical usage remain in the realm of speculation, and such attempts have yielded a broad spectrum of lexical meanings by scholars that do not agree with one another in regard to those meanings. Until a biblical definition can be ascertained I prefer to refrain from such speculation.

16. Universality vs Local Peculiarity

“The implications of the universal, permanent, and absolute nature of the order can only be avoided if Paul was dealing with a particular problem in a particular church or churches” (Rodriguez, p. 54 l12-14).

This is partially correct. Paul did address gender and role confusion in a particular context (so already in 1 Tim 1:19, and later in 1 Tim 4:3; 5:1ff.). But the issue, first of all, rests more in the definition of teaching and the context of the passage. Cultural considerations will only come into play secondarily. Immediate textual context is what we have available most directly. The analyses of historical and cultural contexts are attempts to reconstruct reality and will routinely fall short as scholars simply do not agree what precisely this history and culture is, let alone to what degree it affected Paul’s writing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 17 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It is at this point that we should be reminded of Paul’s clear appeal to creation when it comes to gender roles. Even if 1 Timothy is read through the lens of a local situation, Paul’s solution does not include accommodation or adaptation, but pre-fall realities as points of reference. Paul appeals to creation and the fall – that is the most direct textual context, and we would do well to take this context seriously and submit to inspired counsel in this regard. The Bible speaks its wisdom in simple, direct terms.

17. The Denigration of Motherhood

“God has blessed woman with talents to be used to His glory in bringing many sons and daughters to God; but many who might be efficient laborers are kept at home to care for their little ones” (AH 166 [not 165 as stated on p 57 fn 142]).

It is appropriate for Rodriguez to include this quote for “balance”. But, in the true spirit of his own appeal, in context White speaks of the unique situation of missionary wives. I would hesitate to call an emphasis on motherhood “a minimalist understanding of the role of women” (Rodriguez, p. 57 l6-7). After all, my study does not suggest that motherhood is the only role of women. But it does seek to recover the importance of motherhood when children are present in the family.

The cultural revolution of the 60s has reaped a harvest of rampant divorce, single-parent homes, neglected children, a generation raised by third parties, and the overall drawback of absentee mothers and fathers. Here Rodriguez is pitting one set of quotes against another set of quotes while failing to take the context of his balancing quotes into consideration.

Interestingly, a gentleman from the pro-ordination side thanked me for highlighting motherhood as a much neglected topic within the current debate. We have neglected motherhood as a thematic emphasis and point of discussion for fears of patriarchal overtones. This breach must be repaired.

18. The Use of the Indefinite Pronoun tis

I understand the grammatical use of the indefinite pronoun tis (anyone) differently from Rodriguez, Cosaert, Reeves, et al. Since Paul is gender-specific in 1 Tim 2-3, and since he addresses potential elders who should be certain kinds of husbands, reading tis with a male parsing is not only a possible but a natural reading of the text. Tis has two genders: male and female, but within the context of a sentence tis can be male or female. The pronoun tis can be gender-specific and, in direct context, read in the sense of “any male”. In context, it does no injustice to the text when we read “If any man desires the office of a bishop/elder” (1 Tim 3:1). After all, tis in the sense of anyone is quickly reduced to a handful of qualifying individuals. Even if eldership can be sought by anyone, it quickly becomes evident that it is not for everyone.

19. Gender-Oscillation in 1 Timothy 2:8-3:13

Rodriguez dismisses the gender-oscillation of 1 Tim 2:8-3:13 by pointing out that Paul speaks to the whole congregation (Rodriguez, p. 59f). He does not. While the characteristics of eldership should be expected to be present in the entire congregation, he specifically lists the criteria for elders. The text is

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 18 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

gender-specific and audience-specific. I do not see how this gender-specificity can be so easily dismissed.

20. “Wife of one husband” – 1 Timothy 5:9

Rodriguez dismisses the gender-specific nature of 1 Tim 5:9 on grounds I cannot follow. He previously established that the focus is not gender, but character. Therefore the phrase “a one-man woman” is not an unnecessary repetition that states the obvious, but harkens at the character of a widow – who, by definition, would be and has to be a woman. Since Paul had a specific feminine phrase at his disposal to describe widows eligible for church support, the phrase “husband of one wife” would appear gender- specific as well. One refers to a male, the other to a woman. They are not inter-changeable. While character is certainly in sight (a view not denied by opponents of women’s ordination), gender is part of the communicative package here. Ignoring gender here would result in ignoring biblical counsel.

21. Incorrect quotation of an Ellen White source

Rodriguez quotes Manuscript 163, 1902 as quoted in the devotional CTr (p. 146) incorrectly (I assume inadvertently) as gender-inclusive:

Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men and women who fear God, who realize that they are humans only, not God. They should be people who will rule under God and for Him. Will they give expression to the will of God for His people? Do they allow selfishness to tarnish word and action? Do they, after obtaining the confidence of the people as leaders of wisdom who fear God and keep His commandments, belittle the exalted position that the people of God should occupy in these days of peril? Will they through self-confidence become false guideposts, pointing the way to friendship with the world instead of the way to heaven?

The original manuscript, however, is quite gender-specific:

“Those placed in positions of responsibility should be men who fear God, who realize that they are men only, not God. They should be men who rule under God and for Him. Will they give expression to the will of God for His people? Do they allow selfishness to tarnish word and action? Do they, after obtaining the confidence of the people as men of wisdom, who fear God and keep His commandments, belittle the exalted position that the people of God should occupy in these days of peril? Will they through self-confidence become false guide-posts, pointing the way to friendship with the world instead of the way to heaven” (MS 163, 1902).

It is a curious fact that this statement would be rendered gender-inclusively by a denominational publisher. In its original form the quote cannot be used in favor of a gender-inclusive agenda. Of course, the term “man” or “men” can refer to both genders, but there are times, contexts, and authorial intents that render these terms gender-specific, as appears to be the case here.

22. Male ecclesiastical authority

Although Jerry Moon might respond to his section of Rodriguez’ paper, one correction is warranted. Rodriguez categorically states, “As far as I know, there is not a statement in Ellen White that restricts

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 19 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

the exercise of full ecclesiastical authority to men” (Rodriguez, p. 74 l4-6). This is incorrect, and an astounding oversight of available data. Ellen White declares:

The same principles of piety and justice that were to guide the rulers among God’s people in the time of Moses and of David, were also to be followed by those given the oversight of the newly organized church of God in the gospel dispensation. In the work of setting things in order in all the churches, and ordaining suitable men to act as officers, the apostles held to the high standards of leadership outlined in the Old Testament Scriptures. They maintained that he who is called to stand in a position of leading responsibility in the church ‘must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.’ Titus 1:7-9 (AA 95).

Ellen White acknowledges the urgent need for female participation in ministry and the care of the church, while distinguishing the ordained from the unordained:

Some matters have been presented to me in regard to the laborers who are seeking to do all in their power to win souls to Jesus Christ. . . . The ministers are paid for their work, and this is well. And if the Lord gives the wife, as well as the husband, the burden of labor, and if she devotes her time and her strength to visiting from family to family, 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. Should her labors be counted as nought, and her husband’s salary be no more than that of the servant of God whose wife does not give herself to the work, but remains at home to care for her family” (5 MR 323)?

“Before being sent forth as missionaries to the heathen world, these apostles were solemnly dedicated to God by fasting and prayer and the laying on of hands. Thus they were authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to perform the rite of baptism and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority” (AA 160-161).

This statement qualifies as a description of a full-fledged ordination service. But the most direct hint at male eldership is found in AA 196; here Ellen White assumed that apostles and elders were exclusively male:

“The apostles and elders, men of influence and judgment, framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches.” Interestingly, the adaptation of (The Desire of Ages) called Humble Hero leaves out the phrase “men of influence and judgment” (HH p. 73), rendering an originally gender-specific sentence into a gender-generic statement. This violates the intent of the author.

If “no statement restricts the exercise of full ecclesiastical authority to men”, why did Ellen White never endorse this authority for women? Why was her counsel so gender-specific?

23. Authority

“No one has been called by God to have authority over other believers, males or females, but to serve them by revealing a Christ-like character” (Rodriguez, p. 76 l12-13).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 20 © Ingo Sorke March 2014

TOSC - Ingo Sorke “Response to Rodriguez” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I concur with the latter affirmation but must reject the alleged contradiction that authority and Christ- like character are mutually exclusive, as the aforementioned texts so transparently express (here repeated for convenience):

“Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17).

“Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority” (Tit 2:15).

These examples do not authorize men to act in a dictatorial fashion, but the do establish male headship in the church for the sake of the health and survival of the church.

Conclusion

The method of Bible interpretation proposed by proponents of women’s ordination is as puzzling as it is dangerous. A “new thing” is being proposed where words no longer mean what they mean, where statements can mean the opposite of their apparent meaning, where Scripture is robbed of all gender- specificity. Under this paradigm it is difficult to perceive how the Bible could be allowed to communicate any gender-specificity, even if its writers wanted to express such gender-specificity. The overall thrust of Scripture is silenced, as is the testimony of Ellen White. In the end, this promotes a role perplexity among genders that only mirrors the devastating gender confusion so prevalent in contemporary society. It runs the risk of insubordination to Scripture and the Lord of Scripture. We would do well to follow biblical injunctions rather than cultural and humanistically-motivated inclinations.

May God find us faithful, and grant the church His grace and foresight for the days ahead. Ingo Sorke

Reply to Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Evaluation of the Arguments Used by Those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Ministry” (TOSC, January 2014, Baltimore, Md.) regarding 1 Timothy 3:2

Clinton Wahlen

Dear Angel,
I have great respect and admiration for you as a colleague and appreciation for all that I learned while you were director at BRI. It is not a welcome task to take issue with what you, my friend and colleague, have written. It is only with great reluctance that I have accepted the request to critique openly the work of one for whom I have such high esteem. Nothing here should be interpreted as diminishing the respect I have for you or others on the committee as my brothers and sisters in Christ. Nevertheless, there are many points that I believe you have misunderstood, not only with regard to my paper but also with regard to other papers that take the pro-biblical qualifications position. There are also a number of statements that seem inconsistent or incorrect. I hope that you will accept the following critique of your paper in the spirit in which it has been written—in view of the friendly dialogue we have often had through the years and, on this one topic on which we disagree, as a continuation of that dialogue. In the critique that follows, in keeping with its academic style, I refer to you in the third person.

Methodology

The clearest example of inconsistency is at the outset of the paper in which Rodríguez claims: “The methodology used by our friends is not explicitly stated, making it necessary for me to try to reconstruct it from the papers they presented.”1 However, a little later, he shows his awareness of the methodology we consistently employ when he quotes our explanation of it: “Before arbitrarily elevating some texts above others, all the scriptures on a given subject should be carefully studied and every word must be carefully considered.”2

Furthermore, Rodríguez claims that we elevate Paul above Moses and interpret Genesis through the eyes of Paul.3 But this surprising evaluation can only be made because he virtually ignores the careful and comprehensive exegesis of Genesis 1-3 found in the 65-page paper of Paul S. Ratsara and Daniel K. Bediako4 and in the Minority

1 Throughout this paper, reference is made to the revised version of Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Evaluation of the Arguments Used by Those Opposing the Ordination of Women to the Gospel Ministry,” (paper presented to the Theology of Ordination Study Committee [TOSC], January 24, 2014), 1. Cited 23 February 2014. Online: http://www.adventistarchives.org/evaluation-of-the-arguments-used-by-those- opposing-the-ordination-of-women-to-the-ministry.pdf.

2 Rodríguez, 3, in fact slightly misquotes it. See Clinton Wahlen, “Is ‘Husband of One Wife’ in
1 Timothy 3:2 Gender-Specific?” (paper presented to TOSC, January 23, 2014), 9. Cited 23 February 2014. Online: http://www.adventistarchives.org/is-“husband-of-one-1-wife”-in-1-timothy-32-gender-specific.pdf.

3 Rodríguez, 56.

4 See Paul S. Ratsara and Daniel K. Bediako, “Man and Woman in Genesis 1-3: Ontological Equality and Role Differentiation,” (paper presented to TOSC, July 23, 2013). Cited 23 February 2014. Online: http://www.adventistarchives.org/man-and-woman-in-genesis-one-thru-three.pdf.

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 2

Report to the North American Division—both of which deal extensively with Genesis 1-3 on its own terms.5 Our position is that Paul has understood Genesis correctly and that his quotations of it are in harmony with that understanding. In fact, failing to see this fact leads inevitably to a misunderstanding of not only Genesis but Paul as well.

It is likewise incorrect to suggest that our view taken on 1 Tim 3:2 “will determine their reading of all biblical passages dealing with the topic of male/female leadership.”6 This statement is quite unexpected from one who has been present at all of the TOSC paper presentations and claims to have read carefully all our papers more than once!7 It appears that, because he is unable to accept our careful exegesis of Genesis 1-3, he concludes it must come from outside of Genesis, namely, from Paul. In so doing, one must ask why then does Paul repeatedly refer to Genesis 1-3, not only in 1 Timothy 2 but in many other passages? Would he likewise think it inappropriate to cite Paul’s reference to the early chapters of Genesis in Eph 5:31-33 in connection with male headship in the home sphere? Has Paul misunderstood Genesis? These questions are never answered.

Worse, Rodríguez unfairly accuses those who disagree with him of engaging in a “hermeneutical diatribe,” saying “it leads away from a discussion of the arguments themselves into an evaluation of the character and intentions of those involved in the discussion.”8 Anyone looking at our argumentation, however, will see that the focus is consistently on the various ideas and principles at work in the exegesis and interpretation of the Bible, not on the people. It is the ability to “recognize when certain principles are guiding an interpretation that would seem to be at odds with a plain reading of the text” that is the point.9 Unfortunately, it is Rodríguez himself, who seems to resort to an hominem attack rather than addressing the hermeneutical issues we have raised, despite his acknowledgement that “the question of hermeneutics is at the heart of our discussion.”10

Local Context of Ephesus

Another surprising statement made by Rodríguez is his charge that “the religious situation in Ephesus and Corinth are not carefully examined. It would appear that the fear of over-contextualization does not allow them to take the cultural context seriously.”11 Fully sixteen pages of the paper on 1 Tim 3:2 alone relate to the historical and cultural context of Ephesus.12 Adding to this amazing misconstrual, he asserts: “It is assumed that Paul is addressing a local situation but this situation is never identified.”13 In fact, the

5 See Edwin E. Reynolds and Clinton Wahlen, “Minority Report,” in North American Division Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report (November 2013), 197-200. Cited 23 February 2014. Online: http://static.squarespace.com/static/50d0ebebe4b0ceb6af5fdd33/t/527970c2e4b039a2e8329354/138369043 4980/nad-ordination-14-minority.pdf.

6 Rodríguez, 2.
7 Rodríguez made this statement during the presentation of his paper to TOSC. 8 Rodríguez, 8-9.
9 Wahlen, 5.
10 Rodríguez, 2.
11 Rodríguez, 4.
12 See Wahlen, 11-26.
13 Rodríguez, 5.

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 3

Ephesian context is described in detail and even the related situation in Crete, where Titus was stationed at the time of Paul’s epistle to him, is assessed. Here are just a few of the specific points made regarding the local context in these church settings:14 (1) order in the local church is the focus; (2) certain men were setting themselves up as authoritative teachers of the law, but were in fact false teachers; (3) Paul even names two of them (1 Tim 1:20), both men: Hymenaeus and Alexander; (4) the false teachings were clearly Jewish since they related to “Jewish myths,” genealogies, and disputes over the law; (5) this makes sense within the local context of Ephesus because Josephus indicates that there was a sizeable Jewish population there; (6) the errors being taught in Ephesus were not unique to that city as Paul had to oppose similar ideas in Corinth and Thessalonica; (7) the admonition that women are to pursue peace and harmony, not challenge the established teaching authority of the overseer/elder, fits well within the context of the well-known rivalry in the first century between the cities of Asia Minor.15 Clearly the categorical conclusion of Rodríguez that our reading of 1 Timothy is “sundered from its immediate context” and “makes no effort to set the content of the passage within the full conceptual world provided by the epistle itself”16 is totally unfounded and patently unfair. Such sweeping statements seem to arise from a desire to discover problems for which there is no actual evidence in the epistle itself or even in first-century Ephesus in order to limit Paul’s statements to an imagined local situation that is irrelevant to our time.

Disagreement exists not over whether the local context helps us to interpret what Paul writes to Timothy. We all agree that it does. Rather, we disagree on the sources used to derive that context, their date, and whether we can use extra-biblical information to re- interpret the historical information gleaned from the New Testament itself. The pro- biblical qualifications position does not believe a reliance on sources dating from the second to fourth centuries, many of which are not directly connected with Ephesus at all, is a credible basis for reconstructing the historical setting addressed by Paul in this mid- first century church. Nor do we believe that undocumented assertions about the Artemis cult and its supposed influence on the church should be relied on to understand the false teachings Paul opposes.

To give just a few specific but revealing examples from the evidence of the epistle itself, there is absolutely no hint that any of the false teachers were women—all references to them are to men. It is not even clear that the false teachers were primarily directing their teachings toward women. Such assertions must be read into the text. As we have indicated, the specific descriptions Paul gives of the false teachings have similarities to the kinds of problems he addresses in other cities. Furthermore, if we would take Paul’s instructions to women in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 as related to the false teaching in Ephesus, what are we to make of virtually the same instructions given by Peter to Christian women throughout Asia Minor?17 Our friends try to prove too much, from sources dated far too late, and take too little notice of the abundant evidence

14 On these and other points made regarding the historical context of the epistle, see Wahlen, 13-19, 21, 25.

15 Since Scripture uses “overseer” and “elder” interchangeably for the same office (Acts 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, 7), the remainder of this paper will usually employ just the more familiar term “elder.”

16 Rodríguez, 5 and 48. 17 See Wahlen, 21.

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 4

provided in the epistle itself about the historical context. As we have shown, false teachings occupy a very minor role in 1 Timothy, being limited to brief mentions at the beginning and end of the epistle. By contrast, more than 90% of the time, Paul deals with theological matters common to most all of his epistles, as well as the importance of church order and the management of the church by the elders which Paul especially focuses on in 1 Timothy 2 and 3.

Another example of our position being misconstrued is the claim that we focus on Paul’s use of Scripture in an “attempt to ignore the immediate context” of 1 Timothy.18 As we have already demonstrated, the pro-biblical qualifications position does not ignore the context of first-century Ephesus. The point being made is that, while no one can be absolutely confident about the specific conditions that pertained in the Ephesian church at the time Paul wrote since these are only briefly described, we can be sure about the biblical argumentation Paul uses in the epistle, because he uses it in other places too. Furthermore, no one doubts the Scriptural basis used by Paul to support his teaching. In
1 Timothy 2, as in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5, it is based on Genesis 2.

Protective Pre-Fall Headship Relation Based on Genesis 2

Rodríguez mistakenly summarizes our interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 and 3 thus: “Women are to keep silence, be submissive to men, and are not to exercise authority over them.”19 This is not our understanding; rather, Paul teaches that, as with Adam and Eve in Eden, “by stepping outside of the protective headship relation God established, both women and men are more vulnerable.”20 There is a reason that throughout Scripture godly male leadership is normative, beginning in pre-Fall Eden. In addition, because Paul’s use of the verb “submit” (hypotassō) almost always means submission to God, we concluded that women are to submit, not to men, but to God and His divine plan for the church. Scripture does not teach, nor have we ever implied, that “every male should be identified as the head of every woman everywhere and at any time.”21 This is one of many examples whereby our position is deliberate caricatured for rhetorical effect.

Another caricature of our position is the claim that the biblical principle of godly male leadership makes men mediators for women.22 Even the all-male priests of the Old Testament served in that capacity for everyone in Israel, men and women alike. And all of us agree that “the only Mediator between God and humans (male and female) is Christ.”23 But Jesus’ mediation for us in heaven does not diminish the fact that God’s people have always needed trustworthy teachers of the word. Rodríguez is comparing apples and oranges in trying to equate the authoritative teaching role of male church leadership with the priestly role that belongs to Jesus Christ alone and includes hearing

18 Rodríguez, 5.
19 Rodríguez, 47.
20 Wahlen, 24 (italics original).
21 Rodríguez, 49.
22 Rodríguez, 37-38.
23 Rodríguez, 38. Cf. Ellen G. White, Conflict and Courage (Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald, 1970), 20: “After the fall Christ became Adam’s instructor. He acted in God’s stead toward humanity, saving the race from immediate death. He took upon him the office of mediator. Adam and Eve were given a probation in which to return to their allegiance, and in this plan all their posterity were embraced.”

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 5

confessions of sin, granting forgiveness, and dispensing the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It was Jesus Himself who ordained the twelve apostles, and who in turn ordained elders, to accurately teach the word of God and to faithfully manage the New Testament church. Godly male headship in local churches under Christ as the supreme “Head” of the universal church is no contradiction any more than Christ being the “Chief Shepherd” is in contradiction to His having undershepherds (1 Pet 5:2-4).24 This “either-or” fallacy appears repeatedly in his critique of our position. Rodríguez’s self-confessed failure to understand what we mean by “male spiritual headship” is no license to misstate our meaning. He seems to believe that since spiritual gifts are available to women as well as men, all the gifts must be dispensed by God equally, without regard to gender. But does not God have a right, as Paul explicitly states, to distribute these gifts “to each one individually just as He wills” (1 Cor 12:11)? The gifts are not necessarily distributed as we might like or as might seem right to us.

Rodríguez accuses us of missing “the main idea” in 1 Timothy 2, which, according to him, is that “a woman should learn.”25 Does he understand Paul to be saying that women should learn but men have no need of learning? Such a position would not even make sense. As the New Testament makes abundantly clear, beginning with the fact that Jesus’ larger circle of disciples consisted of both men and women, there was never any doubt about women’s ability and, we might add, their duty to learn. At the very least, we all need to understand the message of salvation and share it with others. Paul focuses not on learning per se but on the way women should conduct themselves in the church. This includes not only their appearance (vv. 9-10), but also their willingness to submit to God’s order, whereby men who are specifically called by God for this role lead out in worship (v. 8) and have teaching authority in the church (vv. 11-12). We agree with Rodríguez that “the authority of the teaching is determined by its loyalty to Scripture rather than by the gender of the person who proclaims it,”26 but this merely confuses the matter and misses the main point of 1 Timothy 2-3. It is not gender that is at issue but submission to God’s order on the one hand versus rebellion against it on the other.

According to Paul, male leadership in the church is based on the creation order established by God in Eden between Adam and Eve. God made Adam first (1 Tim 2:13; Gen 2:7), gave him charge over the garden (Gen 2:15), instructed him regarding the law (Gen 2:16-17), and entrusted him with naming all the creatures that He had made (Gen 2:18-20). Only after all of this was done did God create the woman as a helper for the
man (Gen 2:21-22, cf. v. 18). We agree with Rodríguez that a comparison can be made to the Sabbath.27 Like the Sabbath, which was “made for humankind” (Mark 2:27 NRSV) as God’s special gift to us, because it was the only thing created after human beings, the woman was made “for” the man, as God’s special gift to him. Rightly understood, the concept of godly male headship is a beautiful concept. Unfortunately, sin has distorted
this arrangement into a quest for power (Gen 3:16), but “from the beginning it was not so.”

Genesis records the sad story of Eve’s taking upon herself the initiative to parley with the serpent, take the fruit, and eat it—contrary both to the law of the garden and to

24 Pace Rodríguez, 49-50. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scriptural quotations are from the 1995 edition of the New American Standard Bible.

25 Rodríguez, 52.
26 Rodríguez, 51.
27 See Rodríguez, 27 n. 48.

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 6

the creation order that God had established. Thus, as Paul says, Eve was deceived but not Adam (1 Tim 2:14). Adam saw that Eve’s violation of the creation order had made her more vulnerable to temptation. We are even told that angels had “cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband,” because “with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone.”28 But, “deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and withstand it,” she ignored the angels’ caution and came to accept the serpent’s suggestion “of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her.”29 This principle of godly male headship is applied by Paul to church office and authoritative teaching within the church in 1 Timothy 2-3. This arrangement was no new innovation designed just for Ephesus, a fact that has been demonstrated in detail and need not be repeated here.30 We will simply reiterate that, years before, Paul had already articulated the principle of godly male headship based on the creation order. Rodríguez acknowledges as much in quoting the first half of 1 Cor 11:9: “In Paul, the priority of man is also implicit in the phrase ‘for man was not created for the benefit of woman.’”31 He could have added that this principle is explicit in the part of the verse he omits: “but woman [was created] for the man’s sake.”

“Husband of One Wife” Requirement

In 1 Timothy 2:8-15, Paul outlines this godly male headship principle to lay the groundwork for chapter 3, where he insists that the overseer/elder “must be . . . the husband of one wife” and “able to teach” (3:2). In a footnote, Rodríguez denies that the “faithful saying” of 1 Timothy 3:1 links what Paul writes in chapter 2 with chapter 3, but he ignores the reasons we have given to demonstrate the connection.32 Regardless of whether the saying itself comes before or after the announcement of the saying is not the point. What is important is that in every case the faithful sayings “always appear in the midst of a passage as a connecting link for its central theme.”33 The unified theme of

1 Timothy 2-3 is “roles in the church”34 and the faithful saying in 3:1 (“If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do”) applies the more general instructions on the roles of men and women in the church to the office of elder.35 The fact that tis is an indefinite pronoun does not mean that it “is not interested in defining gender.”36 To the contrary, as a study of all the occurrences of tis in the New Testament has shown,37 the pronoun is indefinite in terms of leaving open its application to specific people, but in at least 185 occurrences it is gender specific—including 75% of

28 Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1958), 53. 29 Ibid., 54 and 59.
30 See Wahlen, 15-16, 21, 28, and esp. 32-33.
31 Rodríguez, 27 n. 48.

32 Rodríguez, 48 n. 100.

33 Wahlen, 19-20. See also the additional evidence given in notes 86 and 87 on p. 20. Rodríguez claims this statement “is not clear with respect to its relevance in the interpretation of our passage” (p. 48

n. 100).
34 Wahlen, 20 n. 87.

35 Cf. n. 15 above.
36 Pace Rodríguez, 59. 37 See Wahlen, 42-51.

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 7

its occurrences in 1 Timothy.38 In addition, Paul usually refers both singular and plural forms of the word to males in this epistle (1:3, 6, 19; 3:1, 5; 5:8, 15; 6:3, 10, 21), including both occurrences in 1 Timothy 3. Thus, “husband of one wife” means just what it says, that an elder must be a man who is married to one wife, as 56 of the 61 English translations surveyed (including the most recent ones) clearly show.39 This qualification for elders is no less clear in Greek than it is in English, though it may be less welcome.

It is on this point that Rodríguez again mischaracterizes the pro-Biblical qualifications position, claiming on the basis of this verse that “single men and even widowers would be excluded from the ministry.”40 First of all, the issue here is not inclusion or exclusion from ministry but the biblical qualifications for ordination. And the verse excludes no one, neither single men nor women (single or otherwise), from preaching. Second, Rodríguez tries to make Paul more precise than he has chosen to be. Nothing in the verse suggests that widowers (as Paul might have been and as Rodríguez allows for) would be barred from ordination. 1 Tim 3:2-5 is not concerned so much with one’s marital status but with the kind of marriage a prospective elder has, with how well the husband has managed his home (which would be just as apparent from the life history of the widower). Significantly, Rodríguez seems aware that the argument made by some—that the verse demands that elders also have children—is without any foundation since he does not mention it in this connection. No doubt the reason for this is that the mention of children comes at the end of v. 4 (“keeping his children under control with all dignity”) as an evidence for the qualification in the first half of the verse (“He must be one who manages his own household well”). This understanding is confirmed by v. 5, which returns to the actual qualification: “if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?” Perhaps another reason that Rodríguez does not mention it is that doing so would come at a heavy price: admitting that the clear qualification required for managing the church is the husband’s degree of success in managing his home as the head. Only later, in connection with deacons, does he bring the subject up—but only under the assumption that the deaconate does not exclude women, an assumption which, as we shall see, is not supported by evidence. That is probably why he never tries to prove it.

The biblical principle of godly male headship does not preclude women from teaching elders or anyone else, as Rodríguez tries to make us say.41 To the contrary, women will continue to function as Sabbath school teachers and even as the occasional preacher on Sabbath morning, assuming they are willing to work under the headship or leadership authority that God has established in the church and not try to undermine it or call it into question. Furthermore, while Paul teaches that “the husband is the head of the wife,” it is always with the understanding that “Christ also is the head of the church” (Eph 5:23) and “the head of every man” (1 Cor 11:3). Therefore, the biblical principle of godly male headship in both the home and the church is to be carried out in love service

38 Twelve of its sixteen occurrences. Arguably, as its grammatical tagging in Accordance and BibleWorks suggests, tis is always masculine unless the immediate context specifically connects it with a feminine-gendered word (only thirty-seven times in the entire New Testament). In order to avoid drawing any premature conclusions, however, the study of tis catalogued a use as generic whenever the context did not seem to indicate a specifically masculine or feminine referent.

39 Wahlen, 35-39. 40 Rodríguez, 60. 41 Rodríguez, 51.

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 8

under the Lordship of Christ (“as is fitting in the Lord,” Col 3:18). It is no arbitrary leadership but the same kind of servant leadership exemplified by Christ Himself, “who loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph 5:25).

It might usefully be added here that while some of our friends at least, though not all, would affirm a headship authority in the home based on Ephesians 5 and other passages, they deny it in the church. This, despite the fact that Paul makes a clear correlation between the two in 1 Tim 3:15, which also identifies the purpose of the epistle: “I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” Throughout 1 Timothy Paul applies the principles given for Christian homes (Eph 5:22- 6:9; Col 3:18-4:1; 1 Pet 2:11-3:12) to the church as the “household of God.” With this principle in mind, does it really make sense in the case of married women pastors, for example, to argue that their husbands may function as the head of the house when they are at home but when they come through the doors of the church the roles should be reversed so that their wives act as their authoritative leader? Such an arrangement seems to turn Paul’s instruction on its head!

In fact, that is the point of our raising in several papers the hermeneutical issue regarding what principles of interpretation are being used in our Bible study. If, through employing a different scholarly method, our friends can rewrite Paul’s “husband of one wife” instruction to mean “wife of one husband” or simply “woman,” then we are able to make any verse in Scripture say what we want it to mean. As Gerhard Hasel reminded us more than twenty-five years ago in a paper on hermeneutics and the role of women, when we bring “norms outside of the Bible” (like the interchangeability of roles between men and women), the Bible ceases to be our authority. “Subjectivity and relativity will in these areas replace Biblical authority.” He further concluded that “the basic and historic rule of the self-interpretation of the Bible is compromised to such a degree so as to render it meaningless.”42 In fact, Paul uses a command form in Greek that is the strongest one possible. As we pointed out, had Paul wanted to write this instruction to apply to both men and women equally (as he does marriage instructions in 1 Cor 7:1-16), he could have done so. The requirement that elders (and deacons in 1 Tim 3:12) be “the husband of one wife” is clear (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6). The problem appears to be not with understanding what Paul means in this verse or even why. The real difficulty for our friends seems to be not with the text itself but applying it within cultures that are actively hostile toward biblical values and flout the important and vital God-given roles He has assigned to men and women in the church. To this extent only, the issue before us is cultural.

Deacons as “Husband of One Wife” and Deaconesses

Rodríguez, in struggling to find a basis for applying “husband of one wife” to women, appeals to Rom 16:1, which, according to him, calls Phoebe “a deacon of the church in Cenchrea.”43 Assuming this is a correct translation, Rodríguez then notes that,

42 Gerhard F. Hasel, “Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics, and the Role of Women” (paper presented at the Commission on the Role of Women–I, Washington, D.C., March 24-28, 1988), 50 (cited in Wahlen, 4). Online: http://www.adventistarchives.org/biblical-authority,-hermeneutics,-and-the-role-of-women.pdf.

43 Rodríguez, 7

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 9

according to 1 Tim 3:12, a deacon is to be “the husband of one wife.”44 Since Paul, he argues, calls Phoebe a deacon, then the phrase here must not exclude women. But, in making this statement, Rodríguez assumes what he seeks to prove. As nearly all translations of Rom 16:1 recognize, diakonos is not used in the technical sense of “deacon” but in the much more common generic sense of “servant.”45 The note to Rom 16:1 in the New English Translation is instructive on this point:

In the NT some who are called διάκονος [diakonos] are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance.46

In 1 Timothy 3:11, Paul sandwiches a reference to the qualifications for women who serve the church in between verses that describe the qualifications for deacons
(vv. 8-10, 12-13) apparently because, while they have no formal title such as “deaconess,” they do a similar work for women that deacons do for the church in general. Otherwise here in 1 Timothy, which was written some years after the epistle to the Romans, we would expect him to say “deaconesses” (tas diakonos) rather than simply “women” (gynaikas).47 These considerations help confirm that Phoebe could not be referred to as a deaconess in Rom 16:1. Rodríguez argues that “husband of one wife” is “highly unusual,” despite the fact that it is found three times in two brief epistles. Nevertheless, he is able to find references to “deaconess” where they do not exist! By contrast, “husband of one wife” is a set phrase, indicating its technical usage as a requirement for church office. Its use by Paul in epistles to both Timothy and Titus shows it was a requirement which was
to be adhered to everywhere, not just in Ephesus. Requiring that both elders and deacons be “the husband of one wife” confirms that godly male leadership is a Biblical principle.

It is an interesting fact that for all editions of the Church Manual before 1990, the following language in connection with Phoebe and the women spoken of in 1 Timothy

44 Rodríguez, 61, actually interpreting Paul to mean that the deacon was “expected to be ‘the husband of but one wife’ (3:12)” (emphasis supplied), whereas the Greek uses the imperative form of the verb eimi “must be” (e.g., NASB [1995], NIV, NET). It was not just an expectation but a command, for deacons as well as elders, that they be married males.

45 In the following passages diakonos refers to Christians as “servant/s” of one another, of the/a church or of God or Christ): Matt 20:26; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 12:26; Rom 15:8; 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:5, 23; Eph 3:7; 6:21; Col 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; 1 Tim 4:6.

46 The NET Bible, First Edition. New English Translation, The Translation that Explains Itself, Biblical Studies Press, 1996-2005. Version 3.3. Other version translating diakonos in Rom 16:1 as “servant” include ESV, NKJV, NASB (1977 and 1995), and NIV (1984).

47 So Robert M. Lewis, “The ‘Women’ of 1 Timothy 3:11,” Biblioteca Sacra 136 (1979), 173. Had Paul wanted to indicate that these women should be the deacons’ wives, he could have made it clear by the simple addition of the word “your” (hymōn) to gynaikas (ibid., 172) or even just the article (tas) as in Eph 5:22, 25; Col 3:18.

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 10

3:11 appears: “There is no record, however, that these women were ordained; hence the practice of ordaining deaconesses is not followed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church.”48 This sentence was deleted in 1990 and provision made for an induction service: “The church may arrange for a suitable service of induction for the deaconess by an ordained minister holding current credentials.”49 In the most recent edition, based on decisions at the 2010 General Conference Session, deaconesses “should” now be ordained: “When these [officers] have been elected, the elders should be ordained, unless they have already been ordained as elders. A similar but shorter service should take place for ordination of deacons and deaconesses.”50 There is also an entire section devoted to the ordination of deaconesses.51 So, in twenty years, policy has shifted from denying ordination to deaconesses because there was no biblical authority for ordaining them, to their induction, and finally to their ordination. Significantly, however, none of these changes from 1990 to 2010 arose from on a biblical study of ordination.

The impetus to ordain women as deaconesses seems to have arisen as a result of pressures during these same years to ordain women as gospel ministers,52 apparently based on a single statement of Ellen White made in 1895, which says that women “willing to consecrate some of their time” to serve the Lord “should be set apart to this work [visiting the sick, looking after the young, and ministering to the necessities of the poor] by the laying on of hands.”53 There is no indication here or anywhere else that she had deaconesses in mind. Nevertheless, barely one month after this statement was published, some interpreted it as authorization for the ordination of deaconesses; but such a service happened only twice and, then, in the same local congregation. After that it seems that deaconesses were never ordained again until its official authorization in 2010.54 Was the ordination of deaconesses discontinued because this is not what Ellen White had in mind? This may be the most plausible explanation. Her virtual silence on the matter compels us to undertake the kind of Bible study we are doing now as part of the TOSC process.55 Hopefully, as a result, our practice can be aligned even more closely with what we know from the inspired writings.

48 See, e.g., Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual (1986 ed.), 64. 49 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, rev. 1990, p. 64.
50 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, rev. 2010, p. 38.
51 Ibid., 78-79.

52 For a brief history, see Edwin E. Reynolds and Clinton Wahlen, “Minority Report,” in North American Division Theology of Ordination Study Committee Report (November 2013), 193-95. Cited 10 March 2014.

53 Ellen G. White, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 9, 1895, 434.

54 See Arthur N. Patrick, “The Ordination of Deaconesses,” Adventist Review, January 16, 1986, 18-19, citing the minutes of August 10, 1895 and January 6, 1900 for the Ashfield church in Sydney, Australia. While W. C. White, Ellen White’s son, presided in the second ordination service, the fact that it occurred in the same church where a precedent had already been set once for ordaining deaconesses mitigates the supposition that her son understood his mother’s statement as authority for the practice. The fact that there is no record of its ever happening again anywhere else during Ellen White’s lifetime may speak even louder against ordaining deaconesses, despite Patrick’s argument from silence that “surely Ellen White would have instructed to the contrary if she had not intended ordination by her Review statement of 1895” (18).

55 Deaconesses will continue to lend important assistance in areas where elders and deacons cannot, as an Ellen White letter to A. T. Jones illustrates: “When a woman comes to you with her troubles, tell her plainly to go to her sisters, to tell her troubles to the deaconesses of the church” (21MR 97).

TOSC Wahlen Reply to Rodríguez 11

Conclusion

Rodríguez confuses and complicates what Scripture makes plain and simple. Paul clearly indicates why he writes to Timothy: “that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). So we are not surprised to find that almost the entire letter is about order in the church and how the church should be organized. Paul gives no indication that he is writing to the church in Ephesus, or that false teachers or false teachings at Ephesus are a major concern. The notion that false doctrine is uppermost in Paul’s mind represents a serious misreading of the epistle since references to this are confined to brief mentions at the beginning and at the end. In fact, there is good reason for the longstanding designation of 1 Timothy as a “Pastoral Epistle.” Like
2 Timothy and the epistle to Titus, Paul only addresses these coworkers—with the one exception being the closing benediction of each epistle: “Grace be with you” (1 Tim 6:21; 2 Tim 4:22) or “Grace be with you all” (Titus 3:15).

According to Paul, order in the church is based on order in the home because the church is “the household of God.” That is why Paul makes reference to the perfect home in Eden as a model (1 Tim 2:13) in articulating the roles of men and women in the church. He also alludes to how that order was destroyed—by Eve being deceived into thinking that she knew better what her role should be (v. 14). Paul has not misunderstood Genesis. The Biblical principle of godly male headship was given by God from the very beginning to preserve harmony, both in the home and in the church. Therefore authoritative
teaching in the church is the responsibility of the elder who “must be . . . the husband of one wife . . . [and] able to teach” (1 Tim 3:2; cf. Titus 1:6, 9). It is also the reason why the deacon, which is the only other ordained church office specified in Scripture, is likewise to be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:12). If we ever get to the place as a church where we can understand these verses to mean “wife of one husband” or simply “faithful man or woman,” then we can make Scripture say whatever we want it to say whenever it goes against our cultural values or comes in conflict with cherished ideas. The questions raised at the end of the paper on 1 Tim 3:2 bear repeating: “There will be other issues. Will they too force us to find new ways of reading the text? Which portions of our Bible will we then call into question?”56

56 Wahlen, 34.

Site Navigation[Skip]

OPEN LETTER to AnGEL Rodriquez