Search — Theology Explorer

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

...more

All (2623) Scripture Commentary (1941) Theology (102) Mike Winger (567) Pulpit (13)

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Many egalitarians expand male authority to its most monstrous extreme to make it intolerable, causing readers to reject complementarianism before ever reading the Bible.

Mistake #4: Egalitarian rhetorical strategy

bypassing scripture straw man argument egalitarian rhetoric

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Groothuis's argument only works against an extreme form of complementarianism that most complementarians would also reject — it attacks a straw man.

Mistake #4: Straw man critique

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis straw man argument relational submission

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Groothuis's rebuttal that prophets had more authority than Levites is a red herring — Levites were the regular, widespread spiritual authorities throughout Israel.

Mistake #4: Levite analogy — responding to Groothuis's counter

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis Levites prophets

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Additional analogy: only a son of David could be king of Israel — this eliminates most people from the highest authority by nature, yet does not make them less human.

Mistake #4: Davidic kingship analogy

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis nature-based roles Davidic kingship

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Even if Groothuis is right philosophically, her conclusion explicitly blocks Bible reading — she says there can be 'no biblical or theological warrant' for women's submission, which pre-determines what the Bible is allowed to say.

Mistake #4: How Groothuis's argument bypasses scripture

bypassing scripture biblical authority Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Both Groothuis and Payne's philosophical arguments kill Bible study by leaving only two options: the Bible supports egalitarianism, or the Bible is wrong.

Mistake #4: Conclusion

bypassing scripture Philip Payne biblical authority

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Mike's rebuttal: the argument that complementarianism causally relates to domestic violence does not pass the 'smell test' when applied consistently to other authority structures.

Mistake #5: Rebuttal via analogy

government analogy authority structures logical consistency

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Extending the analogy: church authority has been abused, boss-employee relationships have been abusive — should we abolish all authority structures?

Mistake #5: Rebuttal via analogy continued

authority structures Ed Citronelli church abuse

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Linda Belleville is so opposed to submission that she argues nobody had authority in the early church — not even Jesus or the apostles.

Mistake #6: Belleville's extreme position on authority

Linda Belleville submission authority in the early church

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Mistake #7: Picking one passage to rule all the rest — both sides do this, creating contradictions within the Bible rather than seeking unified understanding.

Mistake #7: One passage rules the rest

1 Tim 2:12 proof-texting canonical consistency

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-07

Preview of Genesis 1-3 debate: creation order, Adam naming Eve, Eve as climax of creation, Adam blamed for the fall, dominion given to both, 'your husband will rule over you' — with complementarian and egalitarian responses to each.

Preview of next video (Video 2)

Gen 1-3 creation order Adam naming Eve

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Definition of complementarian and egalitarian positions in the debate over women in ministry.

Framing the two sides of the debate

women in ministry complementarianism egalitarianism

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

The general complementarian approach sees Genesis 2 showing husband's leadership role, confirmed in Genesis 3; the egalitarian approach says authority only appears in Genesis 3 as part of the curse.

Overview of the two interpretive frameworks for Genesis 2-3

male authority Gen 2 Gen 3

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Dominion in Genesis 1 is given to both male and female together -- the first mention of human authority in the Bible includes women.

Genesis 1 analysis -- shared dominion

Gen 1:28 dominion shared authority

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's application: limiting women to housework wrongly restricts the dominion mandate of Genesis 1; women should be inventors, farmers, engineers, entrepreneurs, etc.

Practical application of Genesis 1's shared dominion

dominion mandate women's roles women and work

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Philip Payne's egalitarian argument: 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' emphasizes shared essence and kinship, never subordination.

Egalitarian interpretation of Genesis 2:23

Philip Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ Gen 2:23

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Mike's rebuttal: 'bone of my bones' denotes familial connection but says nothing about authority being present or absent, shown by 2 Samuel 5:1 and Judges 9:2.

Evaluating Payne's 'bone of my bones' argument

Philip Payne bone of my bones 2 Sam 5:1

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Two types of egalitarian arguments for Genesis 2: negative case (refuting complementarian points) or positive case (Genesis 2 rules out authority differences).

Framework for evaluating egalitarian arguments

Gen 2 negative vs. positive case egalitarian hermeneutics

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Payne's second argument: the man (not the woman) leaves father and mother, which implies equality rather than male authority.

Egalitarian argument from Genesis 2:24

Philip Payne Man and Woman, One in Christ Gen 2:24

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Payne's third argument: father and mother sharing authority over the son before he leaves shows egalitarian parental authority.

Egalitarian argument about shared parental authority

Philip Payne Gen 2:24 parental authority

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Introduction to Tom Schreiner's six reasons from Genesis 2 for Adam having a leadership role, from 'Two Views on Women in Ministry.'

Transition to complementarian case from Genesis 2

Tom Schreiner Two Views on Women in Ministry Gen 2

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Schreiner's point 1: God created Adam first, then Eve, significantly later -- this implies leadership through primogeniture.

Complementarian argument #1: creation order

creation order Tom Schreiner Gen 2:7

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Primogeniture in Hebrew culture: the firstborn had greater authority; older people had more leadership -- this cultural context is key to reading Genesis 2.

Cultural background for Schreiner's creation order argument

creation order Gen 2 primogeniture

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Egalitarian pushback: animals were made before Adam in Genesis 1, so creation order doesn't imply authority -- Mike's response: Genesis 1 and 2 are separate accounts, and primogeniture only applies among humans.

Egalitarian counter-argument to primogeniture

creation order Gen 2 Gen 1

Mike Winger idea 2022-03-14

Linda Belleville's argument: Genesis 2 speaks of order and source, not authority -- Mike's rebuttal: these aren't mutually exclusive; primogeniture is precisely about order implying authority.

Egalitarian counter-argument from Belleville

Linda Belleville Gen 2 order and source

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike's key rebuttal: the egalitarian 'curse reversal' argument depends entirely on Genesis 2 having NO authority differences -- but Genesis 2 clearly does, so the argument fails.

Why the egalitarian curse-reversal argument fails

Gen 3:16 Gen 2 curse reversal

← Prev Page 42 of 53 Next →

Many egalitarians expand male authority to its most monstrous extreme to make it intolerable, causing readers to reject complementarianism before ever reading the Bible.

Groothuis's argument only works against an extreme form of complementarianism that most complementarians would also reject — it attacks a straw man.

Groothuis's rebuttal that prophets had more authority than Levites is a red herring — Levites were the regular, widespread spiritual authorities throughout Israel.

Additional analogy: only a son of David could be king of Israel — this eliminates most people from the highest authority by nature, yet does not make them less human.

Even if Groothuis is right philosophically, her conclusion explicitly blocks Bible reading — she says there can be 'no biblical or theological warrant' for women's submission, which pre-determines what the Bible is allowed to say.

Both Groothuis and Payne's philosophical arguments kill Bible study by leaving only two options: the Bible supports egalitarianism, or the Bible is wrong.

Mike's rebuttal: the argument that complementarianism causally relates to domestic violence does not pass the 'smell test' when applied consistently to other authority structures.

Extending the analogy: church authority has been abused, boss-employee relationships have been abusive — should we abolish all authority structures?

Linda Belleville is so opposed to submission that she argues nobody had authority in the early church — not even Jesus or the apostles.

Mistake #7: Picking one passage to rule all the rest — both sides do this, creating contradictions within the Bible rather than seeking unified understanding.

Preview of Genesis 1-3 debate: creation order, Adam naming Eve, Eve as climax of creation, Adam blamed for the fall, dominion given to both, 'your husband will rule over you' — with complementarian and egalitarian responses to each.

Definition of complementarian and egalitarian positions in the debate over women in ministry.

The general complementarian approach sees Genesis 2 showing husband's leadership role, confirmed in Genesis 3; the egalitarian approach says authority only appears in Genesis 3 as part of the curse.

Dominion in Genesis 1 is given to both male and female together -- the first mention of human authority in the Bible includes women.

Mike's application: limiting women to housework wrongly restricts the dominion mandate of Genesis 1; women should be inventors, farmers, engineers, entrepreneurs, etc.

Philip Payne's egalitarian argument: 'bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh' emphasizes shared essence and kinship, never subordination.

Mike's rebuttal: 'bone of my bones' denotes familial connection but says nothing about authority being present or absent, shown by 2 Samuel 5:1 and Judges 9:2.

Two types of egalitarian arguments for Genesis 2: negative case (refuting complementarian points) or positive case (Genesis 2 rules out authority differences).

Payne's second argument: the man (not the woman) leaves father and mother, which implies equality rather than male authority.

Payne's third argument: father and mother sharing authority over the son before he leaves shows egalitarian parental authority.

Introduction to Tom Schreiner's six reasons from Genesis 2 for Adam having a leadership role, from 'Two Views on Women in Ministry.'

Schreiner's point 1: God created Adam first, then Eve, significantly later -- this implies leadership through primogeniture.

Primogeniture in Hebrew culture: the firstborn had greater authority; older people had more leadership -- this cultural context is key to reading Genesis 2.

Egalitarian pushback: animals were made before Adam in Genesis 1, so creation order doesn't imply authority -- Mike's response: Genesis 1 and 2 are separate accounts, and primogeniture only applies among humans.

Linda Belleville's argument: Genesis 2 speaks of order and source, not authority -- Mike's rebuttal: these aren't mutually exclusive; primogeniture is precisely about order implying authority.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

Mike's key rebuttal: the egalitarian 'curse reversal' argument depends entirely on Genesis 2 having NO authority differences -- but Genesis 2 clearly does, so the argument fails.

Bible Link Settings