Search — Theology Explorer

Philip Payne Discovering Biblical Equality Phyllis Trible

Trible's influence: her arguments are borrowed by Payne, 'Discovering Biblical Equality,' Tucker and Liefeld's 'Daughters of the Church,' and other egalitarian works.

Trible's scholarly influence despite flawed arguments

Two Views on Women in Ministry primogeniture Craig Blomberg

Craig Blomberg's quote: ancient Jews accustomed to primogeniture would likely have seen Adam being made first as a sign of privilege.

Complementarian scholarly support for creation order argument

creation order 1 Tim 2:12-13 Paul

1 Timothy 2:12-13 as New Testament commentary on Genesis 2: Paul draws on Adam being formed first as relevant to male-female relationships.

NT support for creation order argument

Gen 2 false dichotomy naming as authority

Mike's four problems with Ramsey's paper: (1) ignores Genesis 1-2 context, (2) confuses WHY a name was chosen with WHY Adam does the naming, (3) argues against magical naming instead of actual complementarian claims, (4) ignores that namers consistently have authority over the named.

Critique of Ramsey's paper on naming

Mike Winger idea 2022-04-13

Additional arguments against host-as-leader: Timothy/Titus appointing elders, reductio ad absurdum examples

Mike piles on counter-evidence to the host-as-leader claim.

Titus 1 John hosting vs. leading Timothy Titus

Mike Winger idea 2022-04-13

Tom Schreiner's refutation: co-worker/labor terms are too vague to indicate leadership

Mike reads a lengthy quote from Tom Schreiner (Two Views, pp. 280-281).

Romans 16:3 Philippians 4:3 Tom Schreiner Two Views on Women in Ministry Mary

Mike Winger idea 2022-04-13

'Paranoid masculinity': over-regulation of gender roles in complementarian circles

Mike coins a term for a problem he sees in complementarian practice.

John Piper John Piper complementarian overcorrection Pharisaical over-regulation

Mike Winger idea 2022-05-09

Better equivalence: women prophets in OT lead to women prophets in NT, not women apostles

Mike argues the egalitarian logic fails on its own terms.

hermeneutical methodology OT-NT equivalence women prophets

Galatians 3:28 Galatians 3:28 circumcision judaizers

Alternative explanation for the Genesis allusion: women do not need to marry a circumcised man to be fully in Christ

Mike offers what he sees as a better explanation for the male/female and Genesis connection in Galatians.

Galatians 3:26 sonship status Galatians 3:26 inheritance rights

Why 'sons' should not be translated 'sons and daughters' in Galatians — the sonship status concept

Mike explains the cultural significance of 'sons' language in the passage.

Galatians 2 Galatians 3:24 Galatians 2 justification by faith Galatians 3:24

Sonship benefit #3: Justification by faith

Mike identifies the third element Paul associates with sonship.

judaizers sonship status inheritance rights

The original context: judaizers challenging sonship status of Gentiles, slaves, and women

Mike grounds the passage in its original historical situation.

Acts 10 Acts 15 1 Corinthians 7:18-20 Peter Acts 10 Jew/Gentile distinctions

Jew/Gentile distinctions continued after conversion: Jews kept the law, Gentiles did not

Mike demonstrates that the Jew/Gentile pair retained functional differences in the early church.

Cynthia Long Westfall critical theory dynamics of power

Westfall's claim that Galatians is about 'cultural conflicts, dynamics of power, and law vs. liberty'

Mike evaluates Westfall's characterization of the overarching purpose of Galatians.

Mike Winger idea 2022-08-15

Ephesians 5 doesn't match Paul's style when he writes for evangelistic/cultural purposes

Mike contrasts Ephesians 5 with passages where Paul explicitly adapts for cultural reasons.

Ephesians 5 1 Corinthians 9:20 cultural accommodation Ephesians 5 1 Corinthians 9:20

Mike Winger idea 2022-08-15

Biblical justifications for wifely submission vs slave obedience are completely different

Mike lists the actual biblical reasons for each and compares them.

Titus 2:5 1 Corinthians 14:34 1 Corinthians 11:3 creation order Titus 2:5 1 Corinthians 14:34

judges Deuteronomy 17 judges Deuteronomy 17 Levitical priests

Deuteronomy 17 describes the role of judge: deciding hard cases involving homicide, legal rights, and assault — with Levitical priests assisting.

Defining the judge's role from Deuteronomy 17

Deborah Levitical priests judicial authority

Deborah functioned as a supreme-court type judge handling hard cases — this is public, magisterial authority, not private counseling.

Affirming the public nature of Deborah's authority

Deborah Levites Aimee Byrd

Aimee Byrd claims Deborah was 'the word of God to Israel' since they couldn't access Scripture — Mike says this is false; the Levites taught the law throughout the land.

Rebutting Byrd's claim about Deborah

eldership priesthood pagan priestesses

Introduction to the priesthood topic: women were priests in other pagan cultures but forbidden in Israel under the Law.

Transitioning to the priesthood discussion

Linda Belleville Craig Keener priesthood

Egalitarian view #1: women couldn't be priests because of ceremonial uncleanness from menstruation and childbirth (Keener, Belleville).

First egalitarian explanation for the priesthood restriction

1 Corinthians 15 Romans 5 typology priesthood 1 Corinthians 15

Priests were teachers of the law, determined cleanness, mediated between people and God, bore the sins of the people — typologically pointing to Christ.

Functions of the priesthood and typological significance

1 Corinthians 6:12-13 Katherine Bushnell Alan Padgett 1 Corinthians 6:12-13

Paul does quote Corinthians elsewhere in 1 Corinthians

Mike acknowledges the basis for the refutation view.

1 Corinthians 6:12-13 Corinthian quotations Katherine Bushnell Alan Padgett

Question 2: Is Paul refuting rather than teaching? Examples of Corinthian quotations

Mike evaluates the refutation view more carefully.

logical fallacy custom vs. nature hair length

Something being custom doesn't make it only custom; it may also be grounded in nature

Mike prevents a logical fallacy in interpreting the nature argument.

Romans 1:26-27 Galatians 4:8 Romans 2:14 Tom Schreiner physis Romans 1:26-27

Paul uses physis nine times consistently: never means 'custom'

Mike examines all of Paul's uses of physis.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 biblical authority 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 women's silence in church

Introduction of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as a highly controversial passage

Mike reads the passage and acknowledges modern readers will find it offensive, but states his main concern is understanding what it actually means in context.

appeal to the law law and Christian behavior Andy Stanley

Style Argument 4: Paul would never appeal to the law to endorse church discipline -- rebutted

Mike addresses the claim that Paul's reference to 'the law' in verse 34 is un-Pauline.

1 Corinthians 9:8-11 Deuteronomy 25:4 1 Corinthians 9:8-11 Deuteronomy 25:4 ministerial support

Paul appeals to the law in 1 Corinthians 9:8-11 as a direct counterexample

Mike provides a clear example of Paul using the OT law to establish principles for Christian behavior.

Livy political lobbying learning vs. requesting

Extended analysis of the Livy passage shows different concepts than 1 Corinthians 14

Mike reads the broader Livy context to show it concerns political lobbying, not learning.

1 Corinthians 14:36 quotation-refutation view 1 Corinthians 14:36 e/eta (disjunctive particle)

Greek hinge point: The disjunctive particle 'e' (eta) in verse 36

Mike examines the Greek word translated 'what' or 'or' in verse 36 that carries the entire weight of the refutation argument.

quotation-refutation view Pauline refutation style

Paul never addresses the specific content he allegedly refutes

Mike highlights that if Paul is refuting verses 34-35, he never actually addresses any of the specific claims.

Romans 3:28-29 e/eta (disjunctive particle) Romans 3:28-29 rhetorical reinforcement

The disjunctive particle 'e' reinforces rather than refutes what precedes it, shown from Romans 3:28-29

Mike demonstrates how the Greek particle functions using Romans 3:28-29 as an example.

Genesis 2 1 Corinthians 11:8-10 Genesis 2 Gordon Fee Pauline style

Pauline style argument for the refutation view: three points that fail

Mike addresses three ways proponents claim Paul would not have said what is in verses 34-35.

Genesis 2 1 Corinthians 11:8-10 creation order Genesis 2 appeal to the law

Paul already cited the relevant OT passages in 1 Corinthians 11

Mike explains why Paul does not quote a specific OT verse when saying 'as the law also says' in 14:34.

the law Roman law Jewish oral law

What does 'the law' mean in 1 Corinthians 14:34?

Mike addresses the debate over what 'the law' refers to: Roman law, Jewish law, local custom, or the Old Testament.

1 Corinthians 14:21 Isaiah 28:11-12 John 12:34 1 Corinthians 14:21 Isaiah 28:11-12 John 12:34

Paul uses 'the law' to refer to all of scripture, not just the Pentateuch

Mike argues that 'law' in Paul's usage can mean the Old Testament generally, citing 1 Corinthians 14:21.

John 15:25 Psalm 35:19 Psalm 69:4 law as scripture John 15:25 Psalm 35:19

Jesus also uses 'law' to refer to Psalms, not just the Pentateuch

Mike provides additional evidence that 'the law' was used broadly in the NT.

1 Corinthians 6:12 1 Corinthians 10:23 Corinthian slogans 1 Corinthians 6:12 1 Corinthians 10:23

Paul's consistent pattern: he qualifies Corinthian slogans with wisdom rather than fully disagreeing

Mike shows from multiple examples that Paul never fully disagrees with Corinthian slogans.

1 Corinthians 11 creation order submission 1 Corinthians 11

Education View Hinge 3: Why is submission an issue if it is about education?

Mike identifies the fatal disconnect between the education view and Paul's mention of submission.

Mike Winger idea 2024-03-01

Jesus' use of Sabbath examples to push back against over-application

Mike draws a parallel between Jesus pushing back on Pharisees' Sabbath rules and gender role over-application.

John 7:23 Matthew 12 John 7:23 Matthew 12 Sabbath healing

Mike Winger idea 2024-03-01

Feminism took unhealthy male self-advancement and transferred it to women

Mike critiques the progression from Industrial Revolution to feminism.

Industrial Revolution feminism critique LGBT

Mike Winger idea 2024-03-01

Encouragement to women pastors who have changed their minds

Mike directly addresses women currently in pastoral roles who now agree with his conclusions.

2 Kings 22-23 women pastors Philip Payne King Josiah

Mike Winger idea 2023-11-22

Paul's emphasis on the humanity/birth of Jesus supports a childbearing reference

Mike shows that Paul does emphasize the Incarnation and birth of Christ in his theology.

Galatians 4:4 Incarnation Galatians 4:4 born of a woman

Watchtower doctrinal reversal doctrinal hypocrisy vaccination doctrine

The Watchtower condemned vaccinations as Satanic and a violation of God's covenant with Noah (1921, 1931), then reversed position in 1952 citing legal liability.

Mike adds vaccinations as a third case of Watchtower medical hypocrisy and doctrinal reversal.

Genesis 9:4 IV blood equals eating blood argument Genesis 9:4 eating blood prohibition

Genesis 9:4 is a food command, not a medical command — and intravenous administration is categorically different from eating.

Mike directly refutes the Watchtower's application of Genesis 9:4 to blood transfusions.

Leviticus 17:13-14 Leviticus 3:17 Leviticus 17:13-14 Leviticus 3:17 Mosaic law applicability

Leviticus 17:13-14 is specifically Levitical (Mosaic) law given to Israel, and even within that law the Watchtower selectively ignores the parallel ban on eating fat (Leviticus 3:17).

Mike applies the same hermeneutical critique to the second Watchtower proof text.

Genesis 9:4 Acts 15:29 Genesis 9:4 Acts 15:29 eating blood prohibition

Even granting the strongest interpretation of the blood passages (including Acts 15:29), the texts concern eating blood — not intravenous medicine — so neither position on eating blood requires opposing transfusions.

Mike presents a framework argument that transcends the eating-blood debate: even if you believe eating blood is wrong, that does not require opposing transfusions.