Dear Reader, I have chosen to remain anonymous when I write this article for reasons I am sure you will understand. I will try my best to explain the theological inconsistencies that I experienced firsthand as I attended the Seventh Day Adventist Theological Seminary and was subjected to pro-women's ordination arguments.
They used these arguments to indoctrinate students and to diminish arguments that remain faithful to Scripture. I will not name any of the professors I encountered, only what they said in class to my fellow classmates and I. What my professors had to say were etched into my mind because of how unfair they were, how vehemently and dogmatically they said it, and how skewed it was from the rest of their sometimes logical presentations.
I will move from the smaller scale arguments towards the larger scale arguments, meaning that I will start with the ones that are based upon specific texts and then finish with those that are based upon theological styles or ideology.
Pauline Epistles
I had a class on the Pauline Epistles, in which we covered the pastoral epistles for a great length of time (the pastoral epistles are first and second Timothy and Titus). I remember this day clearly, another student that was not I dared to ask a simple question,
“Professor, as much as I don’t like it, isn’t the passage in 1st Timothy 3:1-7 definitive and conclusive on the case of women’s ordination?”
This student was brave and open minded and willing to challenge his or her worldview when it came into contact with Scripture. The response of the teacher shocks and horrifies me to this day. I can barely type it here. The professor responded as such “I do not believe that this passage is authoritative on the issue.” This is what the professor with his PhD’s in front of an entire classroom of hopeful pastoral candidates had to say. He said that this passage of Scripture is not authoritative on the issue. That was it. It’s not authoritative, end of discussion.
Can you believe this? Let’s try and dissect this and what it means and why it is completely hogwash to say such a thing. We are looking at one of the few passages of Scripture that explains clearly what are the qualifications of those who hope to be episkopos, overseers, bishops, elders, pastors. I do not know many other passages that go into such great length to explain the qualifications. Are we simply going to toss aside one of the few passages that explain what we should look for in a church leader?
Let’s think about this hypothetically. Let us say that my dear professor is correct, that this statement in Scripture is not authoritative. The Apostle Paul gives a long list,
a) husband of one wife
b )vigilant
c) sober
d) of good behavior
e) not given to wine
f) not quarrelsome etc…
Okay, if a is not authoritative, if being the husband is no longer a prerequisite to be an elder or pastor, then what about the rest? Can a pastor be a drunkard? Can a pastor be quarrelsome and impatient? Can a pastor be not suited towards teaching the members? If we remove one part of Paul’s argument and list of qualities, then the entire list itself becomes null and void!
Let us follow this up with the usual retort,
“Well, Paul was culturally conditioned to be misogynistic, if we take that into account then we can just ignore that part.”
This type of reasoning follows the same logical fallacy. What if Paul was culturally conditioned to be against alcohol? Does that mean we can ignore his statement here about being sober and not given to wine? No, surely not! It is a theological fallacy to think this way.
Let us move on towards the next event that happened to me at the seminary when my teacher said something that was just simply not true.
The second statement:
“Eve was not made from Adam’s rib, she was made from Adam’s side, or half of Adam was used to make Eve, therefore she was his co-equal in all things. Including that she was co-priest with Adam.”
This requires a lot of unpacking because one of the professors that teaches Hebrew said this and frankly, in order to say this you have to omit certain biblical evidence that points otherwise. What my professor said is that “It is not rib, it is side or half, and there are no cognates in the bible that support rib.” This is false. But let us start with the word rib.
The hebrew for rib is צֵלָע (from now spelled tsela). Yes, it is true that tsela can mean side, but in this case, how do we know that it is rib? Let’s address the second aspect of what my teacher said.
“There are no biblical cognates that support the reading of rib.”
That’s not true. (For those who might not be familiar, there is another language that helps us to understand Hebrew, which is Aramaic, a closely related language, which appears in the Old Testament alongside Hebrew). As a matter of fact there is a very Adventist appearance of the word rib in the Bible. Daniel 7:5
“And I saw the bear leaning on one side with three ribs in its mouth.”
The aramaic cognate for tsela is עֲלַע (ala). We can see therefore firstly, that while my professors vehemently denied that any cognate for rib appears in the Scriptures, that is simply not true. But how can we know for sure that it is rib, and not side?
We have some help. There is a body of work called the Septuagint (LXX) which is an old Greek translation of the Old Testament which was made some 300 to 200 years before Christ was born of Mary. How do they translate the Hebrew tsela into Greek? They translate it into the word πλευρά (pleura). Those of you who had to go to medical school and learn the anatomy of the human body might be familiar with this word (the latin is costae, but the greek is indeed pleura). This is intriguing for many several reasons. The argument my pro WO professors make is that the word rib never appears again in Scripture, especially in no english translation. But that’s not true either. This is because the word rib does appear again in the construction of the temple!
In 1st Kings 6:15,16;7:3 we see the word tsela appear and is used in all three meanings as rib/beam, side-chamber and leaf (ornamentation). How did the Greeks translate it? When it came to the rib/beam meaning, they translated it as pleura! Interestingly enough, this word pleura does appear in the Bible again. When Jesus Christ was fastened to the old tree on Calvary the soldier pierced his pleura (John 19:34; 20:20,25,27).
Some translations say “side” however, Rib would be much better, because how my professors use the word side, they intend it to mean half of the body, but we know that Christ was not cut in half, rather his rib and lungs were punctured and the blood and water was poured unto us. This is where theology comes in.
Christ is the new Adam. Adam was put to such a sleep, it is called a tardema sleep, which is a near-death like state. Jesus Christ was put to death, just like Adam. Adam was put to sleep so that Eve could be banah or built. (It is important to note that the word used from the creation of Eve is different from the word used when Adam was made. Banah means to construct or build). From the tardema death of Adam, Eve was built. It was through the death of Christ that the Church, the Woman of God was built and constructed. Isn’t it interesting that the prophetic application of the word rib, nation, people, fits so perfectly here? That out of the Rib of Jesus the People of God, the Church of God were born! Ephesians 5:30-32,
“For we are members of His body and of His flesh and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”
I need to unpack further what the professors said. “Eve is the co-priest of Adam.” If someone is the co-priest of another that means that they are equally responsible for things. We need to ask ourselves, is that Biblically accurate? Is that what the Bible has to say? Frankly, no.
If Eve were the co-priest of Adam why is it that when she sinned first, God did not come? Why is it that God only came after the sin of Adam? Romans 5:12,
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
What is Paul saying here? Sin entered into the world through the sin of Adam. Adam, as the first human being, the pre-eminent creation of God, bore the responsibility over all of the Earth and Humanity, as he was even the proper nomenclature of Eve. It is when he sinned and willingly disobeyed the command of the Lord that sin entered into this world and we to this day live in its consequences. If Eve were the co-priest of Adam, then why is it that Paul does not start and lay the blame upon Eve? Isn’t that interesting? If Paul truly is the misogynistic animal that he is painted to be, why would he not lay the blame upon Eve? This is his chance here to do that! But he doesn’t. Signifying that this argument is theologically inconsistent with Scripture.
Woke Theology
There is one last argument I would like to talk about. This is a conceptual theological argument. I had a class that dealt with contemporary Adventist issues. The professor at the time presented two methods of studying the Bible. He presented “static theology” and “dynamic theology.” His method of teaching was insidious. He suggested that people who use “static theology” are akin to the slave-owning Christians of the south that used Scripture to support their stance that slavery was allowed by the Bible. He then presented those that use “dynamic theology” as those of the Christians in the north that acknowledged that yes, Scripture does seem to have texts that condone slavery, but its intention points towards the day of when there will be no slavery. Therefore, he argued that dynamic theology is trying to figure out, not exactly what Scripture says, but where it is trying to point you to go! Do you see how deceptive and mischievous that is?
Do not look at what Paul actually has to say, rather look at what he is intending to say! This means that anything that I disagree with Paul about, I can say “Well Paul’s intention is to point us towards a gender interchangeable world where men and women have equity and there are no differences between the two!” This puts the interpreter, the reader, above the Bible. It means that our minds are above what Scripture has to say rather than we being under the Scriptures. The “I” becomes superimposed over Scripture and this is extremely dangerous.
Conclusion
Dear reader, I want you to understand one thing.
I fully believe that the Holy Spirit will use both men and women to complete and finish the work of God and to help prepare us for the soon and near return of Jesus Christ. However, at the same time we can not buy into the arguments that stem from erroneous concepts that do not align with Scripture.
I am not anti-woman. I am pro-Scripture! I want to protect the true value of what it means to be a woman because Satan is attacking womanhood at every single angle. He is trying to force them to become like men and at the same time turning men into women. It is not a sin to be a woman. Actually, it is good for women to be women. We need godly women in this day and age!
Imagine if the midwives that birthed Moses, of whom we know two of their names, Shiphrah (whose name means brightness, brilliance, splendor) and Puah (glitter and brilliancy) would have said “The midwife career is a gender construct that was created by the patriarchy, we won’t do this job, we want your position mister Pharaoh!” I do not ask forgiveness for my sardonic statement. It is intentional to point out the ludicrous state of what is happening in the world.
I believe that there are things that men can do that women simply cannot do and I believe that there are things that women can do that men are incompetent of doing.
It is shameful to follow the patterns of the world, rather than showing the world what true biblical womanhood means. God bless you reader and God bless the Church.
****
Concerned Seminarian