Symbolism matters

Christ represents the Husband, and the church represents the bride. They are expected to be symbolically intimate one with another. Speaking of Christ and the church Isaiah says, “For thy Maker is thine Husband” (54:5). If the local pastor represents Christ, and the local church represents the bride, then what would it mean if we took the male pastor out of his position to place a female pastor there?

Read More

Ryan Bell shucks Adventism for atheism

For the next 12 months Bell will not pray, read the Bible for inspiration, refer to God as the cause of things or hope that God might intervene and change his circumstances. He says that if God does exist, that he hopes God will not be too bewildered with his foolish experiment. He will be blogging about his experience and writing a book over the next 12 months.

Read More

How to get fired: a guide for the Adventist pastor

On February 22, 2013, Trisha Famisaran, who is assistant professor of philosophy and theological studies and director of the honors program at La Sierra University, preached a sermon at the Hollywood SDA Church, where Ryan Bell is the pastor, titled, “Repenting of Patriarchy and Heterosexism.” Actually, as I think about it, “preached” sounds awfully patriarchal, and I'm not sure what Professor Famisaran delivered can rightly be called a sermon; let's say she gave a talk. This wondrous event was recorded and uploaded to YouTube, so please do not imagine yourself to be under any obligation to take my word about these goings on. Watch the video:

I gather from the video that the Hollywood Church was in the midst of a series called “The five dead deadly sins of the church,” two of which are patriarchy and heterosexism.

Ryan Bell, after a brief but obligatory session of self-flagellation for being a white male, notes that this is the season of Lent. It seems the Hollywood church has adopted the liturgical calendar. If you are a conservative Adventist, it might come as a shock to find Lent being observed in a Seventh-day Adventist Church. Like many Roman Catholic customs, Lent has pagan roots, originating in “weeping for Tammuz” in the ancient Babylonian religion. (Ezek. 8:14-15) Biblical Christianity does not set aside any particular time, other than right now, to repent of sins. (Heb. 3:15; Acts 8:36) But stranger doctrines yet will be heard this February morning.

On the Hollywood Church's Face book page, and in the bulletin for February 22, Ryan Bell quoted Anaïs Nin the French-born authoress most famous for her erotica. Trisha Famisaran also quotes Ms. Nin approvingly at the start of her, um, talk. Anaïs Nin was not famous merely for her fictional erotica, she was famous for her non-fictional diaries which record numerous extramarital affairs, including affairs with high profile personalities such as Henry Miller (himself a writer of obscene material), Edmund Wilson, Gore Vidal and Otto Rank. At one point, Ms. Nin managed to be married to two men at once, Hugh Guiler and Rupert Pole, making her a bigamist. But if you are Ryan Bell or Trisha Famisaran, who better to quote on an Adventist Church's Face book page and Sabbath morning bulletin than the feminist, adulterous, bigamist, pornographer, Anaïs Nin?

It seems Professor Famisaran was at Hollywood church the previous week to view the film “Seventh-Gay Adventist,” and claims to have been involved with that project from the beginning. Since we are expected to repent of heterosexism, Famisaran helpfully provides a definition of that sin: “Heterosexism is the belief that to be straight is to be within the norm and if you're anything but straight, then you're somewhere on the outside and then subject to discrimination.” Notice that this sin that we're expected to repent of isn't defined as hatred of someone because of their sexual orientation; if it were, I'd agree that we should repent of that. But, no, the sin of heterosexism is believing that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal.

Now, around 95 to 97% of the population are heterosexual, heterosexual intercourse has a necessary biological purpose without which humanity would become extinct, and there is universal religious approval for heterosexual marriage. By contrast, only about 3 to 5% are homosexual, homosexual sex has no biological purpose, and it is almost universally condemned by the world's religions. By whatever definition you prefer—statistical, biological, or religious—heterosexuality is is “within the norm” and homosexuality is not. Heterosexuality is normal; homosexuality is not. But among liberal Adventists, it is considered a sin to see the world as it actually is.

If you believe that God inspired the Scriptures, then it seems that God might need to repent of the sin of heterosexism. God has pronounced homosexual acts an “abomination” (Lev. 18:22) and has prescribed the death penalty for male-on-male sodomy (Lev. 20:13). Such abominable acts are also frowned upon in the New Testament. Paul denounces homosexuality as something that results from idolatry and willful refusal to acknowledge God (Rom. 1:24-28), and warns that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and will be subject to judgment under law (1 Tim. 1:9-10). But Bell, Famisaran and other liberal Adventists don't cotton to all that bible-thumpin'. They know better. After all, La Sierra theologian John Jones has closely studied all these passages and concluded that none of them actually means what it says.

Transitioning seamlessly from the “sin” of heterosexism to the “sin” of patriarchy, Ms. Famisaran asserts that patriarchal societies excuse rape of females just because they are women. But rape is and has always been designated a crime in traditional societies; in fact, female sexual virtue and purity is at a higher premium the more traditionally patriarchal a society is.

It is at this point that we learn that Ryan Bell changed the lyrics of the morning's hymn so that God is referred to as “mother” rather than “father.” “Not every church could pull that off,” says Prof. Famisaran. Or would want to. Jesus taught us to address God as “our father.” (Mat. 6:9; Luke 11:2) Scripture sometimes attributes feminine qualities to God (Isaiah 49:15; Hos. 13:8; Mat. 23:37; Luke 13:34) but never refers to God as “mother,” only ever as “father” or in the masculine pronoun. (Matt. 28:19; John 5:19; 16:13) We should never change the way we address God in order to conform to contemporary culture. That Bell, Famisaran and other liberal Adventists dare to do so shows that they are more enthusiastic about feminist, post-patriarchal culture than about following Scripture's example and Christ's express instructions about how God shall be addressed.

Professor Famisaran launches into a long screed against patriarchy. There isn't a hint of a biblical justification for her animus against patriarchy (“rule of the fathers”) because, of course, Scripture endorses patriarchy from Genesis to Revelation. God ordained patriarchy as part of the created order; Adam was created first and Eve was created as Adam's helpmate. After the Fall, God intended for Adam's headship over Eve to preserve a harmonious institution of marriage. (Gen. 2:18-25; 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3,7-10; 1 Tim. 2:11-15). There is no hint that this family order is changed in the New Testament; to the contrary, Paul makes clear that “rule of the fathers” is still in effect in the Christian era for Christian believers. (Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Peter 3:1) There is plentiful evidence that God intends a patriarchal order for his Church as well as for Christian homes. (Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16; Acts 1:12-23; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Tim. 3:4)

It is bold rebellion to take that which God has established and call it “sin.” “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20. We've reached the time that Paul warned Timothy about, “when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

Next, Professor Famisaran confides that she is fond of a certain pop song by one Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, better known by the stage name, “Lady Gaga.” Lady Gaga's elaborate stage shows feature themes of bondage and sadomasochism. The three central themes that shape Lady Gaga's music videos are sex, violence, and power. (According to Wikipedia, that is—I confess to not being a fan.) Lady Gaga reportedly “has the knack of sending rape-like fantasies—in songs and videos that double as catch club hits—to the top of the charts.” Famisaran's favorite Gaga song is “Born this Way,” in which Ms. Germanotta sings:

I'm beautiful in my way 'Cause God makes no mistakes I'm on the right track, baby I was born this way

Don't be a drag, just be a queen * * * 'cause baby you were born this way

No matter gay, straight, or bi, Lesbian, transgendered life, I'm on the right track baby, I was born to survive.

Professor Famisaran interprets this piece, correctly I think, as being a call for the differently oriented to embrace their homosexual orientation. (As an aside, Famisaran proudly relates how, after viewing the film “Seventh-Gay Adventist,” her three year old son said, “momma, when I'm older I can be a mommy like you.” Great.)

There you have it. Lady Gaga has solved the age-old nature vs. nurture controversy: The differently oriented were “born that way.” And that settles it for Trisha Famisaran, professor of theological studies and director of La Sierra's honors program. Those of you who think La Sierra needs freedom from effective church control so that it can be an elite liberal arts college with high academics, here's what you've ended up with: a professor who quotes Lady Gaga as an authority on genetics, psychiatry, and developmental psychology.

The rest of the, um, talk was about the book of Job as interpreted by the Benedictine nun Joan Chittister. I think. Frankly, I zoned out. Oh, wait a minute, something else just caught my attention. In commenting on I Corinthians 12:12-31, which is about how different members of the body of Christ have different spiritual gifts, Professor Famisaran states, “It is God who creates the diverse parts, just as She thinks they should be.” That was the professor's parting comment.

Then Ryan Bell got up and gave a short homily over the communion table complaining of the border fence between California and Mexico. Then he prayed over the wine, implying that not only Christ but also women, gays, lesbians, and the transgendered “knew the cost” and had “paid the price” for something or other.

Stop the Presses

I wrote this column over the course of four days, and finished it on Sunday, March 24. On Monday, March 25, Ryan Bell posted on his web page informing his friends and church family that “the Southern California Conference administration [has come] to the conclusion that they cannot trust me to lead this church as a Seventh-day Adventist Church. . . . they feel that my leadership has led our church outside the accepted framework of Seventh-day Adventism. We have not been able come to an understanding about these things and so my denominational employment will end on or about April 1, 2013” (emphasis added).

If you've come with me this far, you'll have no difficulty understanding how Larry Caviness and the SCC administration made the decision they made. Ryan Bell is a graduate of conservative, self-supporting Wiemar College, and has been an Adventist pastor for 22 years, but, as Bell writes, “sometimes people grow in ways that are incompatible with the institutions they have been a part of.” Bell's personal journey has taken him beyond the parameters of even very liberal Seventh-day Adventism. I suspect that the SCC's decision to fire Ryan Bell was not based solely upon “Repenting of patriarchy and heterosexism;” Bell had long been promoting the “social gospel” (leftist political activism) in place of the actual gospel, and his flirtation with Catholic liturgy is jarring. I would imagine that February 22nd's abomination was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, the final nail in the coffin.

This article was to have highlighted how startlingly bold the liberal faction in our church has become. But—praise the Lord!--the piece turned out instead to illustrate how liberal Adventists can press their luck too far, even in liberal Adventist “jurisdictions” such as the Southern California Conference. Those of us who are prone to pessimism, even defeatism, can take heart at this welcome development. All is not lost, and we do ourselves and our cause a disservice when we talk as though it is.

Of course, the La Sierra situation remains unrectified. La Sierra is still turning out radicals like Trisha Famisaran who, at the HMS Richards Divinity School, are teaching religion to the next generation of Adventists. If we are not vigilant, that generation will come to populate the conference administrations and executive committees, and although Famisaran's neo-pagan effluvia smells noxious to us, it might smell sweet to them. We have much work to do, but there is hope.


The subject of ecclesiology in the New Testament is a broad, interconnected and complex one. Therefore, as we consider this one aspect, there will inevitably be other areas left unresolved. Further studies dealing with deacons, ordination, apostles, E.G. White's understanding, etc. are needed, and will be proposed (Lord willing). The hermeneutical intent of these articles is to follow where the biblical evidence leads, and make conclusions based upon reasonable and consistent lexical, contextual and comparative evidence. In the investigation of these articles, two interesting points regarding leadership structure in the church have emerged: 1) There is a distinction between the offices of presbuteros, episkopos and poimen, and 2) while some offices are spiritual gifts (conferred by the Spirit and recognized by the Church), others are positions established through external, objective and verifiable criteria through prayerful evaluation by the church. This is not the final word on this subject, more research should be done. Part two has been added to help clarify some of the initial conclusions. I also wish to apologize for the technical nature of this article, but feel that some of these issues must be tackled. A word needs to be made in regards to lexical studies and hermeneutics in general. Ferdinand de Saussure has stated that in language “tout se tient” (all things hold together). What he means is that language must be viewed as an interconnected system in which the context provides the clues as to the meaning of the individual words used. Theologian Henry Scott Baldwin makes the following salient points:

  1. Lexical studies are nothing more than the summaries of contemporaneous uses of the word under consideration. Lexis is a description of what people who use the word normally mean to indicate.
  2. We have a pre-understanding of the word based on its use in other contexts. This is the dictionary meaning (denotation) we have in our lexicons. We then attempt to apply the meaning to the present context, and then check to see if the resulting sentence makes sense using this meaning.
  3. This methodology seeks to separate verb and noun. There are numerous examples in Greek where the verbal form does not correspond to all the meanings of the noun. We cannot uncritically assume that a noun we are studying is exactly equivalent to the verb forms in every one of its uses.

As shown in the first article, there are impressive lexical (dictionary) differences between the office of presbuteros and episkopos. An inaccurate understanding of what a word means at the time it was written, will negate all the good contextual, syntactical exegesis we may attempt. There is no doubt that context plays a critical role in an accurate understanding of the text. However, the meaning of the written words are the very foundation of an accurate biblical study. The context will determine which meaning should be used, but the objective starting point is to understand how a word was understood when the author wrote it. The lexical definition, therefore, should not be underestimated, when considering the meaning of a passage.

When dealing with the issue of hermeneutics--the self-authenticating, Protestant principle that Scripture interprets Scripture--should be maintained. We cannot assume that a specific passage or biblical writer will make sharp differences and distinctions between closely related subjects within a chapter, epistle or even all their writings. Examples of this include most of the fundamental beliefs (i.e. justification/sanctification, the differences within the trinity, etc.). It would be far more difficult to understand what Paul means when he penned “absent from the body and present with the Lord” if we didn’t have non-Pauline passages to help us know when we will be present with the Lord. Therefore, when approaching the subject of ecclesiology, we shouldn’t assume one writer will present the corpus of material, nor should we expect to necessarily find the answers to differences within a single passage or context.

1. Are elders (presbuteros) and bishops (episkopos) different and distinct offices?

A. Lexical and comparative evidence shows a distinction as seen in part one, the lexical meanings for presbuteros include primarily administrative, executive and judicial functions:

These definitions matched the biblical evidence when applied to this office. We also noticed that the primary definitions for episkopos focus on guarding, investigative and supervising roles. These definitions harmonize with the comparative biblical evidence as well. We should not underestimate the importance of lexical (dictionary) meanings.

While it is tempting to “run to the text” first and attempt exegesis, we will come up short unless an accurate understanding of the primary and extended meanings are discovered. Only after we know what a word meant when it was originally used, can we apply it to a biblical passage and context and hope to understand it.

B. The offices of episkopos and presbuteros seem to be indicated:

While this should not be the only argument in favor of an office for the episkopos and prebuteros, it is a supportive one. The Greek word episkope has several different meanings (Please see footnotes for a lexical breakdown). There are essentially three definitions for the Greek word episkope:

  1. Visitation, inspection, examination (usually by God, in mercy or judgment, He looks into, searches)
  2. Office of episkopos- specifically, ecclesiastical overseer.
  3. Office (generally), leaders of Christian communities, position, assignment (The N.T. uses episkope in the sense of ‘office’ as well as ‘visitation’)

There are four references for episkope:

  1. Lu. 19:44 “. . . knewest not the time of your visitation.”
  2. Acts 1:20 “ . . . his bishoprick let another take.” (KJV)
  3. 1 Ti. 3:1 “if a man desire the office of a bishop . . .”
  4. 1 Pet. 2:12 “. . . glorify God in the day of visitation.”

Both Luke 19:44 and 1 Peter 2:12 harmonize nicely with definition one when episkope is placed into their contexts. Acts 1:20 is contextually referring to apostles, so the meaning of an “office in general” would best align with this passage. Gerhard Kittel supports this understanding: “the apostolic office is described as episkope. . . The term is used for the apostolic office in Acts 1:16 only because the selection of a replacement was seen to be a fulfillment of the prophecy in Ps. 108:8.” The context of 1 Tim. 3:1 refers to the episkopos (1 Tim. 3:2). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the “office of episkopos” (and not an “office in general”) is what Paul is referring to in 1 Tim. 3:1. Kittel agrees with this conclusion: “The term episkope in 1 Tim. 3:1 does not derive from Acts 1:20 or its O.T. original. It is newly coined on the basis of the title episkopos, which had meantime established itself in the early Church. This is the more easily possible, of course, because episkope is already used for ‘office’ in the language of the LXX.”

An argument in favor of an office for the presbuteros can be made from the word presbuterion. Lexically, there is support for a distinct office or body (Please see footnotes for references) which represents these officers. With presbuterion, there are essentially two meanings:

  1. Office, body, college, assembly, council of elders, “body of eldership.”
  2. Council or Senate of Jews (Sanhedrin), Christian Church, or any body.

There are two references of presbuterion in the N.T.:

  1. 1 Timothy 4:14- “. . . hands of the presbytery (presbuterion).”
  2. Acts 22:5- “. . . and all the estate of the elders (presbuterion).”

In Acts 22:5, the context is referring to the Jewish Sanhedrin, so definition two would apply. In 1 Timothy 4:14, the context is the Christian Church, not the Jewish body, so it is likely that it refers to the body of elders (definition one).

C. The names of the words themselves indicate they are offices, not functions:

For this study, we have been looking at presbuteros and episkopos as nouns. If these words indicated a “function” rather than an office, they would be represented by a verb or an adjective. For example, episkopeo is the verb “to look diligently.” While there are adjectival and verbal forms of these words, we have only been focusing on those represented by a noun.

D. Presbuteros and episkopos are referenced in different situations and with other offices:



Acts 14:23 “ordained elders in every church”

Phil. 1:1 “with the bishops and the deacons”

Acts 15:2,4,6 “the apostles and elders”

1 Tim. 3:2 “a bishop must be blameless”

Acts 20:17 “called the elders of the church”

Acts 25:15 “chief priests and elders”

Titus 1:5 “ordain elders in every city”

2. Is “pastor” a spiritual gift that is it given to all leadership?

In an effort to justify a calling or leading to pastoral ministry (the modern name for “Pastor“ does not seem to be in harmony with the biblical roles of episkopos and prebuteros), some are using the “Gifts of the Spirit” argument to support their belief. It is true the poimen (pastor) is a spiritual gift; it is listed in Eph. 4:11. But as we saw in Part One, the definitions for this word are specific, and do not include the meanings denotated for the presbuteros and episkopos. Furthermore, the biblical references for pastor (poimen) parallel the lexical meanings. In my opinion, this is significant, since it undermines the major propositions in favor of a subjective calling of God into the office of presbuteros or episkopos.

Finally, some see this gift as a function or activity that all or most leadership positions receive. The following include several reasons why this is untenable:

  1. Ephesians 4:11 -- “He gave some pastors....” It doesn’t say “He gave many” or “He gave all.” 1 Cor. 12:8-10 -- "The Holy Spirit gives . . . To one, to another . . . ., to another . . ., etc." signifying a selective distribution not a comprehensive one. Romans 12:4,5 -- Paul states that “all members have NOT THE SAME OFFICE . . . Having gifts differing....” Therefore, the gifts of the Spirit (including poimen) are selectively given by the Spirit to certain individuals. There is no textual evidence that poimen, or any other gifts, are given to a majority of the church;
  2. The noun poimen refers to a position. The verb poimaino refers to an action. The position of nurturing and caring is a spiritual gift, but this was not given to the presbuteros and episkopos. While the presbuteros were admonished to “feed (verb poimaino) the church of God” (Acts 20:28) and to “feed (verb poimaino) the flock of God” (1 Pet. 5:2), they were never asked to be the poimen (noun) in the Church of God. The action of feeding, caring and nurturing are simply duties Christ enjoined upon the leadership of His church (“feed My sheep" (Jn 21:16), not gifts.
  3. Can elder (presbuteros) perform the duties of bishop (episkopos) and vice-versa? There is persuasive evidence that an elder (presbuteros) can and should perform the duties of a bishop (episkopos). As noted in Part One, the presbuteros has the extended function of overseeing, and therefore can also be considered as an episkopos. This is seen in the following passages: Acts 20:17, 28 Paul “called for the elders [presbuteros] of the church. . . take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopos] . . .”; Titus 1:5,7 “... and ordain elders [presbuteros] in every city ... a bishop [episkopos] must be blameless.”

Biblical evidence shows that the presbuteros fulfilled both its own roles and that of the episkopos:


  • Acts 15:2,6 “the apostles and elders [presbuteros] to consider this question . . . Consider this matter.” (See also Acts. 16:4; Acts 4:5,8,23)


  • Matt. 27:12 “He was accused of the chief priests and elders [presbuteros] . . .” (See Mk 15:1; Lk 9:22)


  • Acts 20:31 “. . . therefore watch . . .”
  • 1 Pet. 5:2 “. . . taking oversight . . . Of a ready mind”

The function(s) of the episkopos are outlined in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9. In these passages, the episkopos’ duties do not include those of the presbuteros. Rather, they are in harmony with the lexical understanding of this office.

  • Instructing -- 1 Tim. 3:2 “ to teach" (didaktikos)
  • Guarding -- 1 Tim. 3:5 “...take care (epimeleomai: to take care, Careful attention- of the church of God.”)
  • Inspecting/Supervising/Review -- Titus 1:9 “Exhort (parakaleo). . Gainsayers"; Titus 1:9,13 “Convince (elegcho) . . . Gainsayers . . . Rebuke (elegcho) them sharply . . ”

An overview of the New Testament evidence does not show the episkopos functioning as an executive, administrative or judicial authority as do the presbuteros. Therefore, from the weight of evidence, the office of presbuteros can function as an episkopos, the episkopos obviously functions as itself, but the episkopos does not fulfill the role of the presbuteros.

4. Who is called to pray over the sick?

Interestingly, James 5:14 calls for the elders (presbuterous) to “pray for the sick of the church.” We have traditionally referred to this verse as referring to the local elders. At this point there is no attempt to take a dogmatic position on specifically who the presbuteros are, but it is certainly within the lexical understanding of presbuteros, to be involved in the caring and nurturing functions of the church, including prayer for the sick. Furthermore, unless we are compelled otherwise by Scripture, the episkopos and poimen are not included in this injunction.

5. Is the office of apostles (apostolos) linked with that of the bishop (episkopos)?

At first glance, Acts 1:20 seems to say that the office of the apostles is the same as the office of the episkopos, "his bishoprick (episkope- KJV) let another take." We have already seen that the office of the episkopos was referred to by episkope, but should the “office of the apostles” be understood in the same way? As already seen, the word episkope has three meanings: 1) Watching over, visitation, inspecting; 2) The office for an episkopos; 3) An office or “charge“ in generally.

From the context we know that Peter was speaking of an “office” and not an “action”- so meaning #1 is not possible. Also, we know from the context, the object of Peter’s presentation were not “Episkopos”- but rather “Apostolos.” Therefore, it is not referring to the office of the Episkopos, but to an “office” in general. This is why several translations have rendered it:

  • “Let another man take his office” (NASB)
  • “his office let another take” (ASV, RSV)
  • “Let another take his office” (ESV)

Therefore, the office of apostles is not connected with the office of the episkopos. Rather, we must use the extended meaning for the word episkope and its meaning should be office or position.

6. Is the position of pastor distinct from its function?

The pastor (noun poimen) as discussed in part one, had the basic role of: guardian, nurturer, guide and teacher. As we discussed in question two above, there are times when the elders (presbuteros) were instructed to feed (verb poimano) the church of God. However, since feeding, nurturing and caring were actions, and not spiritual gifts, we must make a distinction between a function and a spiritual gift. Here are a few examples of presbuteros acting out the poimano:

  • 1 Peter 5:1-4 "The elders [presbuteros] who are among you I exhort . . . To feed [verb form- Poimano] the flock of God which is among you..."
  • Acts 20:17,28 "[Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders [presbuteros] of the church. . . take heed . . . to shepherd [verb poimano] the church of God..."

This point is important, since some want to interchange the verbal forms of a word with the noun forms. In doing so, they neglect the contextual and the lexical meanings for the word. No where in Scripture do we see the presbuteros given the spiritual gift of being a pastor (poimen) whether explicit or implicit. While they lexically fulfill the functions of the poimen (nurturing, caring), they were not referred to by the poimen (noun).

In conclusion, after re-evaluating the N.T. testimony regarding the presbuteros, episkopos and poimen, the weight of evidence leans strongly in favor of three distinct and separate offices. As stated in the disclaimer, a thorough treatment of this subject should include the confirming influence of E.G. White’s statements. However, at this point, only a biblical study is possible due to time constraints. The role of pastor (poimen) is a spiritual gift, while elder and bishop are not (presbuteros, episkopos). What difference does all this make, especially in light of the current discussion regarding ordination? When church members assert their right to become a pastor by reason of an inner calling from God, we must ask them to which position are they called? If they feel called to the nurturing, caring and teaching position of the pastor (poimen), they have a legitimate argument to fulfill this role. If, however, they feel that it is the administrative, executive, judicial role of the presbuteros or the inspecting, watching role of the episkopos to which they are called, then the church must evaluate that subjective calling with the objective criterion that are listed in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-8. Scripture must be the final arbiter of all callings, leadings, or gifts or we are left with wild subjectivism with no check or restraint. Finally, although a discussion for another day, bear in mind that the list for episkopos and presbuteros mentioned in Timothy and Titus, not only includes gender specificity, but also marital status and child-rearing responsibilities. We need to be consistent in our exegesis of these passages, by focusing so hard on one area, we may fail to account for other important criteria.

Footnotes will be added soon.