Filter results by source database — Scripture Commentary, Theology, Mike Winger, or Pulpit. Click a tab to narrow to one database.

...more
All (195) Scripture Commentary (63) Theology (3) Mike Winger (127) Pulpit (2)
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mary Conway's counter-argument: biblical exceptions to primogeniture (Jacob, Esau, Joseph, David, Ephraim, Manasseh) show the Bible doesn't care about birth order -- Mike's rebuttal: exceptions prove the rule.

Egalitarian counter-argument on primogeniture exceptions

Discovering Biblical Equality Mary Conway primogeniture
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Conclusion on primogeniture: early readers of Genesis would very likely have understood Adam as having higher authority due to being made first; Genesis 2 is the rule, not the exception.

Mike's tentative conclusion on creation order

Gen 2 primogeniture original audience
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

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

creation order 1 Tim 2:12-13 Paul
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 2: God gave the command not to eat from the tree to Adam alone, not Eve -- Adam had to relay it, placing him in a teaching/leadership role.

Complementarian argument #2: command given to Adam alone

Tom Schreiner Gen 2:16-17 command to Adam
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 3: Eve called Adam's 'ezer' (helper) -- complementarians argue this implies subordination, but Mike finds the egalitarian rebuttal strong on this point.

The 'ezer' (helper) debate

Tom Schreiner ezer kenegdo
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Linda Belleville's argument: every other OT use of 'ezer' has no connotation of submission; God himself is most commonly called 'ezer' in Scripture.

Egalitarian case that 'ezer' doesn't imply subordination

Linda Belleville ezer Hos 13:9
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Egalitarian overreach on 'ezer': Belleville claims it implies 'help that only God can provide' -- Mike refutes this with Ezekiel 12:14 where 'ezer' refers to military helpers.

Egalitarian overreach on the meaning of 'ezer'

Linda Belleville ezer Ezek 12:14
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Craig Blomberg's nuanced view: 'ezer' means the one being helped bears primary responsibility -- Mike disagrees, citing Psalm 146:3-7 as a counter-example.

Blomberg's complementarian take on 'ezer'

Two Views on Women in Ministry ezer Craig Blomberg
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's conclusion on 'ezer': the complementarian view is weak if based on this word; it doesn't imply subordination or submission. The consistent thread is that the person being helped can't do it alone.

Mike's settled view on the 'ezer' debate

ezer Gen 2:18 changed mind
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Philip Payne's overreach: calling 'ezer' 'rescuer' and Eve 'man's savior' goes too far in the other direction.

Egalitarian overreach on 'ezer'

Philip Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ ezer
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mary Conway and R. David Freedman's etymology argument: 'ezer' derives from a root meaning 'strength/power,' making Eve 'a power equal to man.'

Alternative etymology for 'ezer'

Discovering Biblical Equality Mary Conway ezer
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's critique of Freedman's article: it uses circular reasoning (own translations to prove own translations) and has been refuted by Dr. Mark Stephen Francois.

Refutation of the 'ezer as power' etymology

Mark Stephen Francois etymology fallacy R. David Freedman A Power Equal to Man
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's view on 'ezer kenegdo': 'helper' simply means Adam can't be fruitful alone; 'kenegdo' (corresponding to him) doesn't mean 'his equal in all ways' -- both sides overreach.

Mike's settled interpretation of 'ezer kenegdo'

ezer kenegdo Gen 2:18
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Rescuing the 'helper' argument: it's not the word 'ezer' but the whole flow of Genesis 2 -- Eve is made FOR Adam, which Paul interprets as implying leadership in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10.

Reframing the helper argument via the narrative flow

Gen 2 Paul 1 Cor 11:7-10
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 4: Adam exercised leadership by naming Eve -- first as 'woman' (isha) in Genesis 2:23, then as 'Eve' in Genesis 3:20.

Complementarian argument #4: naming as authority

Tom Schreiner Gen 2:23 ish
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

The naming of Eve implies leadership within their equality: Eve didn't name herself, God didn't name her, and they didn't name each other -- God let Adam do it.

Significance of who does the naming

Gen 2:23 naming as authority mutual submission
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Phyllis Trible's objection to the naming argument: naming requires both 'call' and 'name' together in the sentence; Gen 2:23 lacks this formula.

Egalitarian counter-argument to naming = authority

Gen 2:23 Phyllis Trible Gen 4:17
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's response to Trible: demanding both 'call' and 'name' is too rigid; the repetition of 'qara' (call) in Gen 2:19-23 links animal naming to Eve's naming.

Complementarian rebuttal on naming formula

Tom Schreiner Phyllis Trible qara
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Trible's second objection: 'woman' is a common noun (gender classification), not a proper name -- Schreiner's reply: Adam classified animals the same way (types, not personal names).

Complementarian rebuttal on naming as classification

Tom Schreiner Gen 2:23 Phyllis Trible
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Trible acknowledges naming animals is an act of dominion (p. 97 of her book) but fails to separate Eve's naming from that context.

Internal inconsistency in Trible's argument

Phyllis Trible God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality naming as dominion
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mary Conway's alternative approach to naming: it's an act of discernment, not authority, based on George Ramsey's 1988 paper.

Alternative egalitarian argument on naming

Discovering Biblical Equality Mary Conway naming as authority
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

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

Gen 2 false dichotomy naming as authority
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Ramsey's strongest counter-examples: Hagar naming God in Genesis 16:13 and Isaac naming wells he abandons in Genesis 26:17-21.

Counter-examples to naming = authority

George Ramsey Gen 16:13 Gen 26:17-21
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Ramsey's inconsistency: he admits naming 'certifies the dominion of God over those places' when Jacob names locations, contradicting his own thesis.

Internal contradiction in Ramsey's paper

naming as dominion George Ramsey Jacob naming places
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's rhetorical argument: even if naming is 'only discernment,' no one would accept a stranger renaming their child or village -- naming inherently involves authority.

Common-sense argument for naming and authority

naming as authority common sense argument
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Payne's final pushback on naming: the primary message of Gen 2:18-20 is that no animal is a suitable partner, not that Adam names things; and Adam is passive during Eve's creation.

Payne's attempt to minimize the naming significance

Philip Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ Gen 2:18-20
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Thought experiment: imagine Genesis 2 rewritten with simultaneous creation, mutual naming, and shared commands -- the difference you feel reveals the passage's meaning.

Cumulative case thought experiment

Gen 2 cumulative case thought experiment
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike rejects the egalitarian view (e.g., Craig Keener) that subordination only appears in Genesis 3 as part of the curse; he sees a 'godly, tensionless leadership' for Adam in Genesis 2 as part of God's good creation.

Mike's key conclusion on Genesis 2

Gen 2 Craig Keener Paul, Women, and Wives
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Adam's leadership is limited: Eve shares dominion over creation; the authority difference is only in relation to each other, not in relation to creation.

Limiting the scope of Adam's leadership

limited authority dominion over creation complementarian abuse
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Transition to Genesis 3: key observations to watch for -- Satan tempts Eve first, Adam's accountability differs from Eve's, God approaches Adam first, and the curses are different.

Setting up Genesis 3 analysis

Gen 3 the fall serpent tempts Eve
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Reading of Genesis 3:1-20 covering the serpent's temptation, the fall, God confronting Adam first, the curses on serpent/woman/man, and the proto-evangelium.

Genesis 3 text reading

Gen 3:16 the fall Gen 3:1-20
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 5: the serpent subverted God's pattern of leadership by tempting Eve rather than Adam -- Mike thinks this is the weakest complementarian argument.

Complementarian argument #5: serpent targeting Eve

Tom Schreiner serpent tempts Eve Gen 3:1
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner appeals to 1 Timothy 2:14 ('Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived') to support point 5 -- Mike thinks the verse can be explained without the subversion-of-authority reading.

NT support for serpent-targeting-Eve argument

Tom Schreiner 1 Tim 2:14 Eve's deception
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 6: God approached Adam first after the sin (Gen 3:9) even though Eve sinned first, implying greater responsibility -- Payne counters with a chiastic structure argument.

Complementarian argument #6: God confronts Adam first

Philip Payne Tom Schreiner Gen 3:9
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's critique of Payne's chiasm: it's overly complex (A-B-C-D-E-F-E-D-C-B-A), doesn't feel natural, and even if valid, doesn't negate the authority implications.

Rebuttal to Payne's chiastic structure argument

Philip Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ Gen 3
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Romans 5:19 shows the New Testament consistently assigns Adam primary responsibility for the fall, even though Eve ate first.

NT evidence for Adam's greater accountability

Rom 5:19 Adam's primary responsibility federal headship
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Adam represents all humanity in the NT; Eve may represent women or serve as an example, but never all humans -- this is consistent with a greater degree of authority for Adam.

Adam's representative role vs. Eve's

federal headship Adam as representative NT theology
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Combining Schreiner's points 2 and 6 with Mike's additional argument: Adam's curse impacts all creation while Eve's only impacts women, implying different scopes of representation.

Mike's additional argument from the different curses

Gen 3:16-19 scope of curses Adam's greater representation
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Bad complementarian argument #1: Eve usurped Adam's authority by eating of the tree -- Mike refutes this; Eve's sin was against God, not Adam.

Bad complementarian arguments identified by Payne

Philip Payne Eve's sin against God Gen 3:1-6
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Bad complementarian argument #2: Adam's sin was 'listening to his wife' -- Mike refutes this; the problem was the content (eating the fruit), not the act of listening to a woman.

Bad complementarian arguments

bad complementarian arguments Gen 3:17 listening to wife
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Genesis 3:16 -- the ultimate debated passage: 'your desire shall be for/contrary to your husband, and he shall rule over you' -- translation differences examined.

Introduction to Genesis 3:16 debate

Gen 3:16 teshukah mashal
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Linda Belleville's interpretation #1: Eve's desire is for sexual intimacy, and the husband's 'rule' means sexual demands on the wife.

Egalitarian interpretation of Genesis 3:16

Linda Belleville Two Views on Women in Ministry Gen 3:16
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's critique of Belleville's sexual desire interpretation: it doesn't describe a recognizable perennial problem for women and doesn't feel like a curse.

Problems with the sexual desire interpretation

Linda Belleville Gen 3:16 sexual desire interpretation
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Belleville's interpretation #2: translate 'he shall rule' as 'it shall rule' (neuter) -- the woman's own desire will rule over her, removing the husband's authority entirely.

Belleville's alternative translation of Gen 3:16

Linda Belleville Gen 3:16 Craig Blomberg
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Both Belleville interpretations depend on reading 'desire' and 'rule over' as sexual/intimate -- this is the weak spot, examined through the Hebrew word 'mashal' (rule).

Testing the sexual interpretation against Hebrew word usage

mashal Gen 1:18 Gen 4:7
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Analysis of 'teshukah' (desire): lexicons show it could mean sexual desire or desire to dominate; it appears only 3 times in the OT.

Hebrew word study on 'desire' in Gen 3:16

Song 7:10 Gen 3:16 teshukah Gen 4:7
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Genesis 4:7 as the strongest parallel: nearly identical Hebrew to Gen 3:16 -- sin's 'desire' is to control Cain, and he must 'rule over' it. This is about control, not intimacy.

Key cross-reference for interpreting Gen 3:16

Gen 3:16 teshukah mashal
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Belleville's counter: all three uses of 'teshukah' are linked by gender/intimacy -- she interprets Gen 4:7 as a lion wanting to 'consume' (intimate metaphor) Cain. Mike finds this forced.

Belleville's attempt to maintain the intimacy reading across all three uses

Song 7:10 Linda Belleville teshukah Gen 4:7
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

NET Bible note supports the control interpretation: Gen 3:16 announces a power struggle where the woman desires to control the man but the man will dominate her instead.

Scholarly support for the control/conflict interpretation

Song 7:10 Gen 3:16 Gen 4:7 Song 7:10
Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's conclusion on Gen 3:16: Eve's desire is to rule/control her husband, but the husband will rule over her -- this is NOT a healthy or ideal situation; it's a description of the fall's consequences.

Mike's interpretation of Genesis 3:16

Gen 3:16 curse vs. prescription description vs. prescription
← Prev Page 3 of 4 Next →