Thank you for this amazing interview! Love the group discussion format. With three people there’s already more checks-and-balances than just one person talking. Glad we can find so much common ground as Christians, though sad to see some still holding on to slivers of male spiritual superiority. I had a brief exchange with Winger a few weeks back in his comment section and community posts, asking him if he had read Terran’s book, to which he wrote back that he “included it” and “responded to it” in his WCL video series. I mentioned Terran’s blog posts countering the video series and didn’t hear anything. Two days later I asked if he would engage with Andrew and Terran over livestream, to which he said: “I'm done with a project that sucked two years out of my life. I don't intend to keep going back and forth. I think my work stands on its own”… “I'm moving on.” … “A thoughtful person is not likely to be swayed by their papers on me, unless they fail to check the actual context” … “The real reason I'm being pressured to help platform them has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with attention.” I remain hopeful that Winger will at least get to meet and befriend some mutualists. I am glad that all 4 of you love Jesus and all agree that the Bible does not endorse patriarchy. I thought it was worth a shot as a fellow Californian TH-camr to reach out to Winger, but it seems like his reasons for not engaging with you all have solidified in his mind. We have some good friends in the Calvary Chapel circle, so it’s possible he could be a friend of friends, though the people we know are similarly touchy about the issue. It’d be cool to just hang out with him, or do a stream on his channel / my channel (whichever is less attention-getting for me) to discuss our common ground and also pinpoint the things we see differently. But realistically I make videos with toy trains and cars for a living so I’m sure you all could do a way better job engaging with him on the subject matter. Please add me to the mutualist roster and feel free to reach out on my channel’s About / More section with business email and other socials!
Ngl to me this reads as Winger being stubborn, and unwilling to be shown as incorrect on the topic, very disappointed in his responses, I’d hate to say bad faith but that what comes to mind.
I think the biggest weakness of Mike Winger is that he is doing all this scholarly work by himself. Part of the benefit of the university is discussion and having others fact checking us, pushing back against us, and helping us to understand the other side better. Having the method of locking myself in a closet with a bunch of books is bound to lead to errors of understanding.
Ironically enough, he did an outstanding job when he included qualified experts in the project-just check his contents on the Passion Translation. Shame he didn't do the same thing in this regard.
@@NotLahEnough Where is the error then? If he did the same method here as he did with the Passion Translation, these guys would stull have problems with it.
Thank you to all of you for taking up the defense of your sisters! I'm happy to say that as a (former) complementarian, I was convicted while listening to Mike Winger's production on women that I'd never actually studied the arguments of "the other side" myself. So I paused the video and dove in.. after 6 months, I realized I was on the fence. After 6 more months, I couldn't but abandon complementarianism completely. All of your work, as well as Cynthis Westfall, NT Wright, Nijay Gupta, Craig Keener, etc, etc was SO HELPFUL at stripping away the presuppositions and, as you say, pointing me back to the Scripture and what the author is trying to communicate. Thank you+
That's a silly comment. I am a woman and I stand up for godly sisters in Christ. But I won't acknowledge them as pastors or attend their churches. Rubbish.
“They are the kind who work their way into people’s homes and win the confidence of vulnerable women who are burdened with the guilt of sin and controlled by various desires. (Such women are forever following new teachings, but they are never able to understand the truth.) These teachers oppose the truth just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses. They have depraved minds and a counterfeit faith.” 2 Timothy 3:6-8
I work with organic churches in 7 different countries. I only work with ministries or churches that aren’t affiliated with western denominations and influences. Strictly organic because they are the least supported. Each of these countries Christians are a persecuted minority in and publicly living your life openly for Christ can cost you everything. I can tell you three things that are not issues for them that are issues here in each of these countries . 1. There is no KJV only controversy. 2. None of them are Calvinist. 3. And women are very commonly accepted in ministry. It’s not even challenged .
@@ellenmarie9765 Because calvinism has to be taught... you don't get to it from an organic reading of the Bible. They change the definitions of words so when you see those words in the Bible, you think it's supporting the system. I am a former calvinist who was challenged on it and was surprised, and so thankful now, that I'm now stripping away the presuppositions that were taught to me by my "non-denominational" pastors and teachers.
Thank you for being willing to speak up about this issue! I have always had a hearty belief in man's ability to reason and embrace the truth when brought face to face with it. But I'm learning that this topic is kryptonite for many Christian men. And it has been devastating to realize that just because I am a woman, some men (and women) simply will not hear what I have to say. Women will march on as we always have, but men who only see men may need to be given time and patience to discover "a more excellent way." Our pastor is going through the book of Ruth and he framed the scenario this way: "Because Boaz wasn't like Judah, Ruth didn't have to be like Tamar." Enough said. Lord Jesus, your kindgom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven!
Thank you for addressing this on TH-cam. I studied this topic in my MA dissertation just under 10 years ago and I got sent this Mike Winger video from a complementarian who was trying to persuade me of that position. I listened to two videos and just from my reading I immediately knew that Mike had over estimated how well he thought he understood the topic and the scholarship landscape. He kept misrepresenting arguments and scholars to the point where it seemed to me he was questioning their entegrity, which I found distasteful. I also notice how many times he said he had “figured it out” and had done all the reading so he has the answer to settle the debate. And I knew immediately he was onto a loser. It’s one thing to do some study and come to a conclusion that’s not the problem, the problem was that he positioned himself as “the one who was going to give you the settled argument” on the issue. To further compound the situation he was questioning scholars who some of them had possibly studied the subject for the same amount of year Mike has been alive and was calling their scholarship “shoddy” after doing a study that in his own words took him a year or two! I can tell you for sure that is no where near enough to declare yourself an authority on the topic. I have more criticisms but that will do. Lastly (I promise 😂) the most egregious thing of all was that he called for push back and has received it but has not (to my knowledge) even addressed the push back especially from the scholars he calls out, which is erm not a good look at all!!!
I was an undergraduate Bible student before I was a graduate Bible student, and NOT a very good one. Mike reminds me of my old dorm mates, the enthusiasm of someone whose grasp of the discipline hits a certain ceiling, I will call it undergraduate. When a student is required to read everything on a subject in the primary languages, it's miraculous how the enthusiasm of the undergraduate just melts away, the hubris, the arrogance, the authority just melts away. It's like looking into the universe at the trillions of stars and being reminded that we don't know all there is on a given subject. Great video this. I like Mike, have enjoyed his videos, and I don't think we should ever lose our passion for the Bible, but sometimes the passion needs to be more fair, I have had to learn the hard way that I don't know 1% of the material the way my juvenile self believed I had. The older I get, almost 60, the stupider I get, but the larger my library becomes. It's almost like with every book purchase, I get dumber. I am pretty sure that is called sapiential irony - the more we read, the less vocal we are about knowledge or the "right way" because we learn there is more than one way to skin a cat. I have never skinned a cat, that is pure metaphor. Please youtube do not cancel me. Thank you, God bless, Happy Friday. Go Lions.
I share in your insight: the older I get, the less I know. I no longer have the enthusiasm nor excitement of my youth. Honestly, I’m replying to your comment here because it discouraging to consider that I must read everything on a subject in its primary language to begin to speak intelligently on a subject. For what it is worth: I have wrestled with this particular topic for decades now. With my limited understanding, I have concluded that there is no “slam dunk” line of argumentation or “silver bullet” that puts these differing visions to rest. I could be very wrong here, but I decided that it is a matter of personal conviction. I am simply tired of the back and forth, but the lack of a compelling resolution keeps me looking into the differing understandings on the matter. Lord, have mercy!
@@Cretoman It's not hard. Those that knew the scriptures (Old Testament) knew that the Judges were the primary/senior pastors/shepherds at that time period. God ruled Israel through the Judges. A Judge could judge anything, including homicide cases. Therefore a Judge could execute a man for his sin. The ultimate in spiritual authority. A Judge was cleared to teach from the Law, therefore scripture. This is what the people of the first century had. That is, the Old Testament scriptures. Then...Paul came around, and we have 20 centuries of debate and confusion. Judges 4 and 5 (Deborah), else my free informal postable essay on her. Read time: 10 minutes
100%. I was atheist for years and a lot of atheist scholars got regular fodder off of Mike’s channel. He speaks with a tone of authority and just enough research to convince crowds of people who haven’t gone through any in-depth research on the Bible. It isn’t all bad either as he does a lot of good getting people interested in all kinds of biblical topics and his level of discourse is easily engaged by a lay audience. Biblical scholars of all stripes regularly refute a great many of his claims showing either a lack of expertise in the topics he is speaking on or logical and methodological errors he makes regularly that land him at his conclusions. He’s simply engaging more topics than he’s qualified to be engaging with the certitude he exudes. I think a big reason so many people end up engaging his claims is that he tends to be so sure of them rather than admitting a higher degree of uncertainty and giving a more accurate account of the actual current situation of scholarship ( if he’s even aware of it). This just invites higher criticisms. Most of them are constructive too, but I doubt he has the time or desire to actually engage them. Can’t do everything
@@Szpak-123 In the OT, priests are a closer representation of NT ministers then judges. They were appointed representatives before God, judges were not. Judges were leaders sent by God to free Israelites (judges 2:16).
Mike Winger gives you his opinion by how he interprets the Bible. I have seen him admit he was wrong at times and make corrections, but he has said many times dont take my word for it read the bible and pray about it and let the Holy Spirit teach you. He has great knowledge of the bible and I have learned a lot from him and I feel he does it all in love. We are never going to agree on everything but we can agree to disagree respectfully.
I'm so glad that you are covering this topic, Michael! Mike Winger was a huge influence on my faith, and when I went through his series it pointed me squarely opposed to egalitarian thought. It wasn't until a year or so later that my mind was changed on the subject through careful study of scholarship and scripture. When I rewatched his videos then, I found them very unhelpful, uncharitable, and misrepresentative of the view of those who affirm women in ministry.
I'm a woman who is appalled at the flagrant disregard of Scripture. The Bible is very clear that both in the home and in the church body, God has assigned the role of leadership to men. This isn't demeaning to women, it is simply our role to partner with men in this God mandated authority. I'm so tired of the false teaching and deception on this topic, and I see reward lost in heaven for rebellion. It's very sad.
@ I’m sorry, but it isn’t flagrant disregard of scripture to take context into account and understand them in a different way. I would disagree that the Bible is clear about “the leadership role being assigned to men”. “The Bible is very clear” that Deborah took the leadership role over all of Israel, even though she had a husband who presumably could have done so. I don’t think it’s helpful to characterize an egalitarian view as false teaching and deception. If you disagree, I would love to hear the particular reasons why you disagree, but it’s pretty uncharitable to describe it as false teaching simply because you disagree. I believe firmly in the Bible, I just also want to understand what it’s saying in its context so I know how to apply it outside of its context.
@@jaredmatthews1561… It is not a flagrant disregard of Scripture. I would ask the sister who made this statement: What do you do with the scriptures where Paul calls for slaves to submit to and serve masters? Those are very clear also. Paul no where explicitly calls for the abolition of slavery or for masters to set their slaves free- and neither does Jesus. So was Harriet Tubman wrong for helping slaves escape? There is no Scripture approving that. Was Fredrick Douglas wrong for speaking against slavery when neither Paul, Peter, James or any biblical writer does not explicitly do so? What do we do with the plain reading of the text that calls for slaves to serve their masters- was President Lincoln wrong to set slaves free? Were all of these people who fought for the freedom of my ancestors flagrantly disregarding the text of Scripture? If not… how do we explain and justify the freeing of slaves in the West- which was spearheaded by Christians?
29:25 That's a Tu quoque fallacy. Mike's personal application doesn't effect the validity of his argument pertaining to Women's ordination. Also the fact that the precise meaning of αὐθεντέω is unclear doesn't lend credence to either view, the fact that διδάσκω is is being used and the immediately proceeding context of qualifications for overseers ( "Being the HUSBAND of one wife" ). I don't think you're addressing the context either.
They have two articles addressing the supposed elder/overseer/shepherd passages from the dubiously so-called "Pastoral Epistles." Briefly, they favor the CEB and CEV translations. Please see their articles at Terran's site for details.
“That’s a Tu quoque fallacy”. BUT it isn’t. It’s a logical inconsistency. Mike Winger’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:13 as an appeal to a supposed creation principle of men having authority over women is logically inconsistent with his recognition that Scripture shows that women may have authority over men in society. For discussion of the context, please see our full articles on 1 Timothy 2 and 3, which you can find via the link which Mike Bird has put just under the time stamps under the video.
Mike Davis at KICTV: Kieeping it in Context on youtube does and excellent job of refuting Winger's videos. He has read the same books as Winger but comes to a completely different conclusion. He demonstrates how Mike Winger misrepresents egalitarian scholars in his videos by actually reading lengthy quotes from the books Winger claims to have read. Davis' videos are as long as Winger's and it takes some time to get through them, but I personally have benefitted from his teaching style of repetition, repetition, repetition. He is diligent in taking his time in setting up the background, the context of the disputed passages, but if you hang in there until the end, you will have an "aha" moment that will stick.
I'm Swedish, grown up in one of the most equal and feministic societies in the world, currently living in Norway because of Bible School. I guess I could be described as a Charismatic Christian, but I prefer to just call myself a follower of Christ, amongst siblings all over the world, belonging to the one church "The Body of Christ", including everyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus as his/her Lord and Saviour and who has been borned again. I'm sorry to say this, but I have difficulty taking this video seriously. You say: "If he's right that God wants husbands to exercise authority over their wives, or to lead them, why is there nowhere in Scripture which says that a man aught to do that?" My question is: WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU READING??? I can recall only from my memory many places where it talks about women "submitting" to their husbands. If that in it self, not considering all the examples of men leading their wives, doesn't mean that the husband should be the main leader of the family, why then is it only written to the wives that they should submit to their husband, and never the other way around?? If someone is submitting, then someone must be that person's leader/head - as Christ is the leader/head of the Church. "Submit yourselves to one another because of your reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" /Ephesians 5:22-25 Some overfocus on the first verse in this passage and wants it to mean that both the man and his wife should submit to eachother, but it's not actually what it says there. It's a direction to all believers to submit to one another. So sure that includes married people, but also everyone else. Focus is not only on the internal relationship between man and woman. There can be men submitting to men, and women to women aswell, but IN MARRIAGE the Bible is very clear that it is the wife that should submit to her husband. Words like authority and head, with paralells to Christ's position in relation to the church, is often used when talking about marriage, and when the Bible passage abouve speaks to the man, he is not commanded to submit, but to LOVE the wife. If God wanted the men to submit to the wives in a similar way as the women are called to submit to their husbands, I don't understand why He never instructs them to (clearly, as He does so many times to women). I don't understand how this is not crystal clear to all Bible believing Christians. If someone thinks it was only for the time of the Bible, then why does Paul draw parallels and argues with references back to Adam and Eve and the fall of man. Because God's instruction than men shall "rule over the woman" comes already from early Genesis, just after the fall when they both hade eaten of the forbidden fruit - the woman tempted by the snake and the man tempted by his wife, we can understand that this command, with loads of confirmation through out both the Old and the New Testament, is not a contextual thing, but a timeless order from God, ATLEAST until sin is once and for all taken away. But that is the time when Jesus says: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." /Matthew 22:27-30 ...so I'm not sure how relevant this whole topic is at that time. God bless you. Let's all respect God's orders in creation and His good directions and commands given to us through His Word. I pray that you stay "unstained from the world” (James 1:27), but "alive in Christ" (Ephesians 2:5)
you wrote: There can be men submitting to men, and women to women aswell, but IN MARRIAGE the Bible is very clear that it is the wife that should submit to her husband. I don't believe this, and have a long post explaining my thoughts. It includes scripture. Massachusetts, USA
Thanks for your thoughts. Have you read our engagement with Mike Winger on the Greek word kephale and on Ephesians 5? You seem like you have the appetite.
Thank you again to more commenters. Here is a second batch of my responses, collected together: @markwood3583 “on Junia … you have not represented Mikes view accurately.” BUT I have checked the transcript and at 13:01 Terran accurately stated Mike’s fall-back position that, if Junia was an apostle, she was not an authoritative apostle. The problem with Mike’s view is that his version of what you call “the middle category” of apostles does not fit the NT. On reading Acts and the NT letters, it is hard to see how pioneering apostles (like Barnabas and Silas and Junia) did not have authority over the churches which they helped to establish. Who has authority to appoint the first elders? For a fuller answer, please see our article responding to Mike’s video on Woman Apostles. @markwood3583 “Could we have the 12, then the barnabases, then the junias then the epaphridituses?” “surely the "middle" has to be more varied then [than] authoritative apostle like Barnabas and Silas.” But Mark, it appears you are inventing a new category of ‘apostle’ that is not seen in the post-Pentecost mission or churches, of whom Junia would be the sole example. Hope you enjoy reading the book. Critique is always welcome. We learn in community. @markwood3583 “if the 72, presumably men and women, are called apostles by origen, and all they did was a short term mission trip and preach then Junia is not the sole example of the kind of apostle that was not necessarily a Barnabas type.” BUT this discussion turns on what Paul meant, not on what Origen meant nearly 200 years later. The term ‘apostle’ is used about 80 times in the NT. In those 80, there is not even one example of the additional meaning which you are suggesting, of which Andronicus and Junia would be the sole examples. @markwood3583 “I would be interested to know how many of the 80 refer to the 12, the money carriers and then most importantly the category we are discussing. Including the other categories inflates your number to help your argument.” BUT (1) The numerical total makes no material difference to my argument, which is that there are no occurrences in the NT of the additional meaning for ‘apostle’ which you have suggested. (2) There are about 27 uses of the term ‘apostle’ in the Gospels and Acts 1:1 to 8:18 as referring to one or more of the Twelve. After that point, the references in Acts are a mix of primary apostles and pioneering apostles. In Paul’s letters, there’s a similar mix, plus the two uses to mean a courier sent by a church. Fuller explanation, with Bible references, is found in our article on Terran’s website, responding to Mike Winger’s Part 5 video ‘Were Women Apostles in the New Testament?’ You can readily find every use of the term ‘apostle’ by a search on stepbible.org @PC-vg8vn “Aren’t these [signs, wonders and miracles] the evidence of an apostle?” Yes, they are one piece of evidence (2 Cor 12.12), though humble love and likeness to Jesus are essential (Matt 7.15-23; 11.29; 2 Cor 10.1; 11.7, 12-13; 1 Thess 2.6-9). According to the traditions held in the East, Andronicus and Junia “converted many to Christ, healed people and drove out demons, founded churches …” More info in our article on Terran’s website, responding to Mike Winger’s Part 5 video ‘Were Women Apostles in the New Testament?’ (There is no tradition that they were couriers, nor is that meaning likely in the context of Rom 16.7.) @cirdan4170 “I did not expect such blatant straw manning, partially putting words in wingers mouth” BUT what strawmanning did I or Terran do? You do not provide any example. We were careful to represent him accurately in our fourteen articles which respond to his videos and we always invited correction. When a few people wrote in with queries, we promptly made any needed corrections. If any more are needed, we will be happy to make them. @CleansingWater “I'd mainly be curious to hear your dealing with 1 Peter 3” In my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video. In that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’. @Shane_The_Confessor “1 Peter 3: 1-7 There's your command in language that even you cannot miss.” BUT in my Bible, in those verses, there is no command to husbands to exercise authority over their wives. Is there something in your version that isn’t in mine and isn’t in the Greek text? @heatherboley8148 “after watching this video, I still agree with Mike Winger.” The purpose of the video was not to persuade anyone to change their mind. To do that, it would have had to be as long as Mike’s videos (43 hours). The purpose was to indicate that there are issues with the reliability of Mike’s work and to introduce our detailed articles. We invite you to read them and pray that you will be blessed in doing so. @matthewford4050 In your reply to Norrin Radd you quote the AV of Eph 5:24 which starts with “Therefore …” This highlights the problem. That translation 100% fits a patriarchal interpretation. But in the Greek, v24 starts with “alla”, which means “but”. That word does not introduce something that follows logically (head means authority, THEREFORE Paul says submit). It introduces a strong contrast (head does not mean authority here BUT Paul says submit). For fuller explanation, please see our detailed response article to Mike Winger’s Part 9 video. @matthewford4050 “Why do you ignore what Peter instructed?” BUT (1) Peter does not instruct men to rule their wives, exercise authority over them or lead them. Those are man-made commands which are not found anywhere in Scripture. (2) We don’t ignore what Peter instructed. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video; within that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’. And in my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter. @BornAgainBerean481 “This is unbelievable, its like they want Paul to talk to us like we are so stupid that don't know what authority means. Thats their whole basis. "It does [not?] expressly say that".” In view of your handle (“Berean”), do you really mean that it doesn’t matter what the inspired words of Scripture actually say? Mike Winger teaches that a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife. But there is no such command in Scripture. Do you agree with adding man-made commands to Scripture? Jesus had some strong words about that (Mark 7). @jasondoman6135 “I’m confused how you come to the conclusion that Ephesians gives the same council [counsel] to both husbands and wives” BUT that is not my conclusion and I haven’t said that. Some of the counsel that Paul gives is the same and some of it is different. @jasondoman6135 “Is counseling wives to subject themselves to their husbands not also counseling husbands to lead?” No, it is not (an instruction to A to do X is not an instruction to B to do Y). And all the more in view of Eph 5.20-22. The best Greek texts read “… always giving thanks to God the Father for all things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, submitting to one another in reverence for Christ, wives to their husbands …” Wives’ submission is an example of the submission to one another that is expected of all believers. @jasondoman6135 “Winger doesn’t just assume Paul magically changes who he’s talking about in 1 Timothy 2”. BUT in substance he does. He doesn’t pay attention to the context or follow through Paul’s train of thought. For a short explanation, please follow the link that Mike Bird has given to our article ‘Where Mike Winger Went Wrong On Women’ and go down to our heading ‘#12, In 1 Timothy 2 Paul deals with false teaching.’ For a fuller explanation, please follow the links to our full article ‘The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2’. @jamessago9995 “In 1 Tim 2:9, Paul talks about how women are to dress and adorn their hair. Did priestess of Artemis ware braided hair, pearls, and gold jewelry as a form of piety (and is Paul pushing against this?) Or do you think Paul is wanting wealthier Christian women to not flaunt their wealth? Or is there another option?” Good questions, thank you. In first-century conditions, the mention of pearls tell us that the women Paul had in mind were super-rich. Super-rich women in Ephesus would probably have been involved in the cult of Artemis but we cannot say whether they had been priestesses before they were converted to Christ. For fuller discussion, see our article “Part 12 (The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2)”. If you go to the link posted under the video, you’ll see it in the bulleted list of articles. Within that article, the section most relevant to your questions is under the heading ‘Objection 6 - Not a particular kind of woman?’
Like the Bible, some of Mikes work is more inspired while other parts are less inspired. Mike is a great man of God with an honest desire to know the truth. Having critical discussions like this on the meaning of scriptures so individuals can decide for themselves how to interpret them is a great service.
I've now bought Terran's book. I like this quote "Complementarians have often argued that mutualists compromise Scripture. What they don’t realize or acknowledge is that, though they rightly uphold the divine authority of Scripture, they merge their interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. God’s word is true, but we need the humility to admit our interpretations of it may not always be correct. God’s word is indeed infallible. We, however, are not."
Be careful of Paul's teachings, on a number of subjects. Jesus was aware of the false teaching during His time of men referring to themselves as spiritual 'fathers' and addressed it. Paul either didn't know about it or disregarded it. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. -excerpt Matthew 23 -words of Jesus For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father... -excerpt 1 Corinthians 4 -words of Paul
@@lectorintellegat Paul was very serious about his position as spiritual 'father'. A position that was totally invalid according to Jesus. I have a long post explaining this. This was Paul's most serious false teaching. Postable here.
@@lectorintellegat Do read Andrew Bartlett's book. I was a complementarian as I thought there was only one way to understand the Bible's teaching on leadership. In my opinion it's the most balanced book on the matter. Possibly because of his background in advocacy and his Biblical language training.
Terran's book carries the same weight as Mike's videos. Neither are trained to take these arguments on, I just suspect Terran's better at it because he draws on the work of those more capable than he is whereas Mike attempts to do it all on his own.
So when Paul says the husband is the “head” of his wife, what does that mean then? Does not the term “head” imply leadership, authority, and preeminence?? Take a gander at Judges 11:11, Ephesians 1:22. Do you know what the term “husband” actually means? Why did Sarah call her husband “lord”? Why is it that wives specifically are told to submit themselves to their husbands, but husbands specifically aren’t told to submit to their wives? What does it mean for Christian to be the head of the church? In what ways would that be different from husbands being the head of their wives? Is not the church the bride (wife) of Christ? Does Jesus not lead and exercise authority over his bride (the church)?
Jesus LOVES His bride and serves her. As Paul calls husbands to do. Nowhere in this passage does Paul tell men to "lead" or "take charge" of their wives. That was the point Bartlett made in this video. And Paul does not tell wives to obey their husbands (as he tells slaves to obey their masters only a few verses later), he tells them to submit to their husbands--in the same breath that he calls members of the church (men and women) to submit to one another in v. 21 for the sake of Christ and the peace, unity and order of the Ephesian church.
"Preeminence" and even "leadership" do not directly equate to "authority." If a husband initiates and goes above and beyond in self-sacrificially serving, he is "leading" in those ways but not exercising "authority." The term "husband" in Greek is just "man." Translators decide based on context how to render it. Sometimes, 1 Tim. 2 for example, there is disagreement on that. What it means for Christ to be "head" of the Church depends on context. In the context of Eph. 5, "ruler" or "authority" is not the most likely meaning. All believers, including husbands and wives, are told to submit to each other in Eph. 5>21. V. 22 has no verb in the Greek, but rather uses the verb from v. 21, so the submission there by wives is just an example of the mutual submission. V. 24 reiterates it.
@@alyssa_trulytree Paul doesn't have to tell husbands to "lead" their wives, because it is already implied by stating that the husband is the "head" of the wife. This is my first point in my OP.... Based on your response, it seems that the words "lead" and "take charge" are triggering you or are being associated with a negative connotation. Is not Jesus Christ "leading you"? Do you have a problem with Jesus "taking charge" over your life? My point here is that servant leadership comes with authority. This doesn't mean a loveless and domineering type of leadership. It's clear in the text, Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord in Ephesians 5:22-24, yet it seems like you are trying to omit this by quoting verse 21, without acknowledging the fact that verses 22-33 explain what Paul means in verse 21. Servant-Leadership comes with authority. A husband serves his wife by loving her in a way that translates to protecting her and providing for her. And wives serve their husbands by submitting to their husbands, and respecting them as they would the Lord Jesus. This means that she willingly obeys her husband rather than bickering and arguing with him. 1 Peter 3:1-6 calls to this - which is why in my OP i asked "Why did Sarah call her husband lord?" These questions should have made you take another look at the word of God and reconsider your position as it makes no sense. The Husband is the head of the wife, meaning he has authority over his wife. Christ is the head of the church, meaning he has authority over the church - yet the authority of the husband shouldn't be abused to domineer over his wife, just as Jesus didn't abuse his authority to domineer over the church. Authority should be exercised in love, and we see that in the example of Jesus himself. A husband must gently lead, guide, instruct, and correct his wife, and his wife must humbly submit, follow, obey, and trust her husband. That's the tango. That's what each person in the marriage should be striving to achieve. The perfect analogies here are Jesus being the Shepherd and the church being his sheep. Jesus loves his sheep, and will go to the pit to save his sheep out of it, yet as a shepherd he also gently guides his sheep and takes care of them. However, his sheep must hear his voice. Sheep naturally follow and trust the voice of their shepherd. If a sheep doesn't follow and trust the voice of their shepherd, that is a lost sheep who is in danger as there are wolves ravening. If a woman doesn't want to submit to her husband, she is not living with the right attitude Christian wives are instructed to have toward their husband.
@@Norrin777Radd Leadership is always associated with authority as leadership inherently involves the exercise of authority. When someone is called a "leader," it implies they have the capacity or permission to make decisions, provide direction, and hold others accountable. A leader without authority is an ineffective person, and really an oxymoron. Also, the term "husband" in Greek is "anēr", and it does not JUST mean "man", it can also mean "husband", you just have to look at the context in which it's used. If you look at a Greek Lexicon, it shows that this Greek term in Ephesians 5:22 is being used to refer to "husband", hence why the word is translated as "husband" in your bible... You say that the term "head" doesn't mean "ruler" or "authority" in Ephesians 5, ok. Prove it then. What else does it mean?? Have you looked into the actual meaning of the word? It literally shows that the Greek term kephalē either literally means head like the body part, or is metaphorically used to mean master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife, when it is used to refer to persons. Authority is clearly implied here. And try not to let the word "authority" trigger you into assuming that I'm talking about an unloving, domineering, forceful kind of authority. That's obviously a sinful and abusive way to exercise authority, and doesn't ever end well... We know that's clearly not advised in scripture. However, the scriptures are clear that the husband is the head (authority) of his wife, and must love her by sacrificially providing and protecting her, and gently leading her and instructing her. It seems that those who hold to the egalitarian view are either being misled or blatantly ignoring what the text actually says. Both Paul and Peter clearly instruct wives to submit to and reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24, 33). To have a meek and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4). To go to their husbands if they have questions about a sermon in Church (1 Corinthians 14:35), to cover their heads when praying or prophesying in church/public as a sign of being under their husband's authority (1 Corinthians 11:10), to be obedient to their own husbands (Titus 2:5), and subject unto their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:24). We see this is obviously a unique role for wives. They instruct husbands to sacrificially love their wives (Ephesians 5:25), to honor/respect, and be considerate of their wives (1 Peter 3:7), to not be harsh in their leadership (Colossians 3:19), and to serve and care for their wives as they care for themselves (Ephesians 5:28-29), as the head (authority) of their wives (1 Corinthians 11:3, 10), but no where does it say for them to submit to their wives in the same way wives are instructed to submit to their husbands. This then means that the egalitarian view is WRONG. There are distinct roles the husband and wife play. Both serving each other in mutual eagerness to love each other, by playing their distinctive roles in marriage.
Thanks. Will buy Terran Williams' book. To date Andrew Bartlett's is my top recommendation for a detailed study on this matter and Mike Bird's Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives and Bobby Haircuts has been my top recommendation for a quick introduction for someone looking for an egalitarian explanation.
Other than wishing there was a woman a part of this conversation this was great. The thing that stood out to me with Mike Winger’s videos was not even his arguments but his presentation and overall attitude toward others, mainly scholars or otherwise who disagreed with him. Advertising yourself as if you have unlocked the answers and had some spiritual revelation sounds more cultish than well researched. I think there is some decent scholarship out there supporting complementarianism but his was not it. He completely ignores huge works of scholarship and misconstrues them for his own argument’s benefit. I know this isn’t a valid argument in terms of biblical scholarship but I also can’t help but think about how convenient it is for men to be complementarian. I really hope Mike engages at some point, if not just for a wonderful discussion. Egalitarian all the way.
Saying that Paul was referring to authority whenever he used Kephale (head) is just not as clear-cut as some propose. Please read the writings of Dr. Philip Payne (who started out believing firmly in male authority/female submission and became a believer in mutual authority/mutual submission after years of research) and Dr. Catherine Clark Kroeger's explanations of how the word kephale (head) might have been understood by Paul's readers. I have posted both below.
Mike Winger NEVER engages in debate or with those who push back on his stance - on anything! I don't know for sure, but I suspect Mike is self-educated rather than having a university background and I think there's a lot of insecurity there. He has said that debate is 'not his thing' so, make of that what you will.🤷
Reminds me of what the religious leaders thought of the apostles of Christ…..they were unlearned men but those guys well they were uneducated know nothings. This should give many pause. C H Spurgeon…….right, he was an unlearned man as well. Humble pie was being served up in those days. God has used men who many looked down on r viewed as no nothings ……and the power of God was on full display. As it should be 😋
Sheila Wray Gregoire makes a distinction in her book between pre-2016 and post-2016 work from the Kellers regarding marriage. I know there was a debate about the "Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father" heresy that was widely debunked online that year, but not sure if that was the distinction for Sheila. Terran's article "Subordinating Jesus and Women" mentions some of the Kellers' viewpoints as well
Regarding scriptural passages where Paul commented on marital roles, what is almost never explored and seemingly unknown to Complmentarians, is that under Roman law, an adult married Roman woman remained under the authority of her father. She was under his authority not her husband's. Likewise a husband remained under the authority of his own father and would not become a true head of any household or family unit until his own father died. The legal category of marriage where a father handed over his daughter to a husband existed in the early Roman Republic, but was no longer practiced by the late Republic. It had been rejected. Parents and in-laws (including mothers) could force a divorce of adult children against their will. Such was the power of a paterfamilia. It is not uncommon for marriages today to run into trouble because of meddlesome in laws, but nothing like it could happen under Roman law. These passages make a lot of sense in this context with the issue being about asserting leaving and cleaving rather than tempering a battle of the sexes between a couple with the man having authority. There were other categories of marriage such as masters recognizing slave couples, who were not allowed to legally marry, but biblically could. In this case the challenge would be that of a masters attempt to control a marriage as an interference with the biblical leave and cleave model/mandate. As a side note, NT reference to women being saved by childbearing likely refers to the institution of 'jus trium libororum' instituted originally by Augustus and continuing onward. Roman women bearing three children and freedwoman bearing four children were emancipated from male guardianship for the most part, whether fathers or husbands.
Part 7 PAUL'S SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE IS WEAK Paul states that it is good for a man to be alone, in 1 Corinthians 7. ...that it is good for them... Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each has his own gift from God, one in this way, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. God states that it is not good for a man to be alone in Genesis 2. Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the Lord. -excerpt Proverbs 18 (above) House and wealth are an inheritance from fathers, But a prudent wife is from the Lord. -excerpt Proverbs 19 (above) We are not to make marriage decisions on our own. With our wisdom. We are to marry or not, according to God's will. And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,... -excerpts Matthew 1 Even though Paul states that unmarried women should remain unmarried women, he also states that women, presumably married women, would be saved by having children. (Though in fairness he might have been referring to Jus trium liberorum - The jus trium liberorum, meaning "the right of three children" in Latin. It was a Roman law that gave women some advantages. Too much to write about here though. Also, one could argue that Paul might be stating that women would be assisted and helped when giving birth, by God. And not by the pagan god Artemis. This goddess supposedly would help in the birthing process.) The text below is unclear on this matter however regarding the possible application of Jus trium liberorum or Artemis. Instead Eve is mentioned as a sinner and we're left with only that. ...and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety. -excerpt 1 Timothy 2 YLT For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. But women will be preserved through childbirth-if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation. -NASB
I very much hope that Mike Winger engages with someone on this topic. I think he's afraid that he would be proven wrong, as he really don't perform well in debates.
Thank you. You are much more charitable towards MW than I would have managed to be. I find MW somewhat judgemental and holier-than-thou. And he was horrible to my pastor.
The passage on a woman not teaching a man (versus men plural) probably is better understood as one-on-one mentoring. This is not about teaching in a group setting or a co-ed setting including men.
People forget that the reason why wives are commanded to submit to their husbands and there are no commands for husbands to submit to their wives, is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with Jewish or Roman understandings of the family where the Father has principal authority. Contrary to modern American evangelicalism, the Ancient Near East was actually egalitarian. It should be clear that Junia being an Apostle, also entails that the was one who had rule over her household even in the case she had a husband, because neither the Jewish nor Roman model of the family considered the male head to be the principal agent in which that responsibility lies. Hence, claim that death came through Adam rather than Eve, is to be taken as an illustration rather than implying a metaphysical order of relation. It should also be clear that a rise of domestic violence of women against men, is not something more proximate to egalitarianism and therefore is not parallel to any concern of domestic violence of men against women being more proximate to complimentarianism. It should be obvious that just because the husband loving his wife as Christ does the Church in a self-sacrificial manner is essential to the definition of complimentarianism, that this doesn't mean this is contrary in any sense to men abusing their wives.
@@azkulfrost from the fact, according to Bird, that complimentarianism is only a recent development that arose after WW2 affluence in Western society. Seeing that the only alternative to complimentarianism is egalitarianism, it follows that male-headship is a new phenomenon, not present in human society other than in modern, western Christianity, nor in the dimorphic gender traits of primates. If ofcourse a troupe of baboons was led by a male, that could be due to the influence of inter-species complimentarian fear-mongering against the rise of radical feminism in baboon-culture, or perhaps a result of the curse due to the Fall. In the recapitulation of nature under thr headship of Christ, assuredly baboon-culture will be restored and elevated to egalitarian glory.
I read Andrew's book some time ago and it is excellent. In this video you refer to 3 types of apostles. The problem I have with that is that Paul, for example, used the same word so how can you really know he viewed different apostles differently? When he defended himself to the Corinthians (clearly some had been casting doubt on whether Paul was a 'true' apostle) Paul said that he showed himself to be a genuine apostle because of the 'signs, wonders and miracles' he did when with them. Aren't these the evidences of an apostle?
Regardless of the 'apostles matter' you mention, I regard Paul as almost a false teacher, due to him having at least two serious false teachings. 1) His firm belief that he was a spiritual 'father'. 2) His belief that husbands were over their wives. Paul comes up short in other teachings as well. The above two, and more, are addressed by me in an informal free postable essay.
@@Szpak-123 Among the various problems with that view are the facts that Luke regarded Paul as an apostle, and the author of 2 Pet. regarded his writings as equal to the other Scriptures. So if Paul is untrustworthy, so are Luke and Peter.
“Aren’t these [signs, wonders and miracles] the evidence of an apostle?” Yes, they are one piece of evidence (2 Cor 12.12), though humble love and likeness to Jesus are essential (Matt 7.15-23; 11.29; 2 Cor 10.1; 11.7, 12-13; 1 Thess 2.6-9). According to the traditions held in the East, Andronicus and Junia “converted many to Christ, healed people and drove out demons, founded churches …” More info in our article on Terran’s website, responding to Mike Winger’s Part 5 video ‘Were Women Apostles in the New Testament?’ (There is no tradition that they were couriers, nor is that meaning likely in the context of Rom 16.7.)
@@Szpak-123 To Szpak-123: You have made many comments under our video. I thank you for drawing attention earlier to 1 Chronicles 17.6. But you keep saying Paul was a false teacher on two points. Our video was intended for people who, like us, accept the authority of Scripture. May I briefly indicate our position on the points you have raised? (1) As we read the New Testament, the idea that Paul taught husbands to be “over their wives” is a misunderstanding of what he wrote. We have explained this at length in our articles on Terran’s website. (2) You seem to be misreading 1 Cor 4:15 as contrary to Matt 23.9. The point Jesus is making is clear from 23.5-12. Paul’s use of ‘father’ as a figure of speech in 1 Cor 4.15 is unobjectionable; he is not telling the Corinthians to call him ‘father’ or ‘Rabbi’.
@@AndrewBartlett-k7x you wrote: “Aren’t these [signs, wonders and miracles] the evidence of an apostle?” Yes, they are one piece of evidence... Then was Stephen an apostle? So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task... And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. -excerpts Acts 6 The prophets of the Old Testament performed miracles by God's power. The same is coming in the future. ...and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire...because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. -excerpts Revelation 11 Paul taught a hierarchical, and therefore false view, of Christianity. He repeatedly stated he was in the highest tier. The apostle tier. The trouble, in my opinion, is that 'apostle' is regarded as almost a god-like title. Also, there is no definition that is specific, except 'one who is sent'. So someone sent out to various cities and countries to preach the gospel message. It seems most people read into the title of 'apostle' much more than what was originally intended. Anyway, those are my thoughts.
I must say I find it really strange how modern scholarship agonizes over every individual Greek phrase, assuming that the use of a unique word communicates profound ideas that obviously authenticate their perspective. I get it people have to write PHDs and have scholarly debates, but this overemphasis on grammar and isolating individual words is bizarre. We have partial knowledge of the ancient world, just because the documents that survive dont use a phrase or word all that often doesnt mean it wasnt used all that often in the rest of ancient society. It's probably better to read peoples words in context of the other words and see how those words were intrepreted by the early church to get clarity on how Paul was initially understood.
“better to read peoples words in context of the other words”. YES, reading in context is important. That is what we have done in our articles. BUT it is disappointing that not-reading-in-context is one of the most frequent shortcomings in Mike Winger’s video series on women in ministry. We have documented this in our articles.
What about this verse that many people ignore 1 Peter 3:5-6 KJV - For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
@@massiefamily7229 I noticed that the only argument is to state it was regional or cultural (which is typical) or to attack me. The consistent witness from the church writings for the first 300 years showed that women covered their heads according to 1 cor 11, and you most likely believe this is cultural as well. The church from Asia to North Africa, to Europe held to this same teaching. The most common way of disregarding scripture is to simply say that was their culture.
Gents, I am dissapointed with your discussion on Junia as you have not represented Mikes view accurately. This is so important. You can disagree with his view but until you can demonstrate that you understand it by presenting it accurately your rebuttal of said view loses all strength. Which is sad because i was hoping for dialogue so that you could help me understand the egalitarian view better. I will summarise mikes view as i understand it. Junia was probably a woman and she may well have been an apostle. Not one of the 12 and not simply a money carrier. She may have been a missionary (sent one) and she may have been involved in starting and maybe even leading churches in the early stages before they became established. Now i am also a missionary. I was sent out by my church to plant churches in the middle east. I am also complementarian. When we were involved with the first church that we knew of in this country, the first believers were women. Therefore the first leaders were women. This is not ant complinentarian. This is starting church from nothing. Over some time men were saved and when the transition period was over men were leading the church as elders. Wingers complemntarian view on Junia fits perfectly with her being a missionary who helped start churches but does nothing to overturn pauls instructions on elders. I am very disappointed as you have added nothing to the discussion because all you said was she is in the middle category of apostle. Winger said that too.
Thanks for your thoughts? Have you read our engagement with Mike's teaching on Junia? I'd be interested to know if you think we misrepresent him? A short on-the-spot interview is hardly the place to say anything thoroughly.
@@terranwilliams6941 Appreciate your response. I am working my way through your book and Mike's videos simultaneously. I have also been reading your response to his videos. I am almost finished your book. A third of the way through Mike's videos and a third if the way through your response. I jumped ahead to read your response on Junia and I can see a fair representation there and acknowledge that time may have contributed to a poor portrayal of his position in this video. I still have two concerns. First and probably less important, I am more disturbed by the portrayal in this video than I was before I read the article. Maybe I am being unkind due to time constraints but I find this videos summary of Junia unacceptable especially after reading your article. Here's why I think I am disturbed. When I watched the video, I assumed you misunderstood winger. That's a small thing. It happens to all of us. After reading your article i see you didn't misunderstand but may have deliberately presented a watered down version which I hope I am wrong about and perhaps your time constraints answer is sufficient but it is still suspicious to me. Are we trying to get to the bottom of something here? Or are we being accidentally disingenuous? I feel the latter might have occurred. Maybe that was unavoidable due to the nature of a 45 minute video covering lots of ground. As someone who is honestly trying to understand what is going on in the egalitarian side of this debate, I keep trying to find resources that are not afraid to accurately represent the complementarian side because if it is wrong then accurately presenting it would show where it is wrong. To your credit, the article does not do that so I move on to a more important question because maybe you can help me see where I am wrong. On this one, I lean towards Junia being female though I remain open to the possibility she was male. On the translation meaning she was an apostle and not just known to them. I find myself in the middle. It's ambiguity to even Greek readers not far removed from when it was written means both are possible to me. However, where I don't agree is on the elevation of apostle which seems to me to mean missionary, so that an egalitarian position on eldership can hold. It's probably because I am a sent one that I find it easier to believe a sent couple might have done great work in helping start churches but are not as important as instituted leadership. It does not follow for me that because Junia was a good missionary that this somehow correlates to woman can be elders. Even in your notes, you quoted origen calling the 72, apostles. Which is right because Jesus sent them. By this definition we have millions of apostles today and most of them are women. The word apostle is loaded with power because most understand it to be like the super apostle 12 and it's not here and you know that. But calling her an apostle plays to that uneducated view that most listeners would have. I feel like you are trying to create a category of authority between super apostle and missionary that you think elders would have been subject too. But even today when we receive apostolic visits from those covering us, they are subject to the elders and not the other way around. One of the biggest mistake in historical missions or should I say apostleship was failing to institute local eldership and the apostle/missionary became the leader of the church. This has caused much harm. This is why Paul sent Titus back to make sure elder teams had been instituted and churches were not being led by junias and the like. I haven't studied this next verse so again I might be very wrong in my understanding of it. Does first apostles then prophets and teachers really establish an order of authority like you suggest in your article? Yes if we are talking super apostle. No if we are talking missionary. Apostles come first in the starting of churches, then elders preach and teach and the church is released through good teaching into all her gifts. To me this speaks of natural church progression rather than spiritual authority. An apostle is just a sent one. If they are good at what they do they may even help start churches (it seems Junia might have done this) but God help that church if they end up leading it. If Junia was not allowed to lead the church despite being a missionary, why should we believe her apostleship has any say on women being elders?
“on Junia … you have not represented Mikes view accurately.” BUT I have checked the transcript and at 13:01 Terran accurately stated Mike Winger’s fall-back position that, if Junia was an apostle, she was not an authoritative apostle. The problem with Mike’s view is that his version of what you call “the middle category” of apostles does not fit the NT. On reading Acts and the NT letters, it is hard to see how pioneering apostles (like Barnabas and Silas and Junia) did not have authority over the churches which they helped to establish. Who has authority to appoint the first elders? For a fuller answer, please see our article responding to Mike’s video on Woman Apostles.
@@markwood3583 you wrote: Does first apostles then prophets and teachers really establish an order of authority... Part 15 PAUL TEACHES THAT CHRISTIANITY IS HIERARCHICAL And a dispute also developed among them as to which one of them was regarded as being the greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles domineer over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it is not this way for you; rather, the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves. -excerpt Luke 22 -words of Jesus But as for you, do not be called Rabbi; for only One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for only One is your Leader, that is, Christ. -excerpt Matthew 23 -words of Jesus But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. -KJV `And ye -- ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director -- the Christ, and all ye are brethren; and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens, nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ. -Youngs Literal Translation Jesus teaches that in Christianity there is no hierarchy. There are no groups above other groups. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, and various kinds of tongues. -excerpt 1 Corinthians 12 -words of Paul Paul teaches that there is a hierarchy. And then explains where each group sits within the hierarchy. Paul, in several of his letters, placed himself in the highest tier. Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle... -excerpt Romans 1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God... -excerpt 1 Corinthians 1 Paul, an apostle and all the brothers who are with me,... -excerpt Galatians 1 ______________________________________________________ Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ... -excerpt 1 Thessalonians 1 ...we could have asserted our authority as apostles of Christ. -excerpt 1 Thessalonians 2 Paul states that he, Silvanus, and Timothy had authority because they were apostles. For if I boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord gave... -excerpt 2 Corinthians 10 -Paul speaking of himself and Timothy That authority even extended to the ability give men over to Satan...so they could learn. ...that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme. -excerpt 1 Timothy 1 -words of Paul The reader is also suggested to read: Part 10 PAUL REFERS TO HIMSELF AS A SPIRITUAL FATHER THE MOST SERIOUS FALSE TEACHING OF PAUL Even though Paul had women that worked along side him in his ministry, Paul also taught of the hierarchy of men above women in marriage and also in church settings. This false hierarchical teaching is different, as it is a direct assault against all women. It states that half of humanity is lesser, in a spiritual way, than the other half. There is too much to cover on this matter here, but much more is available to the reader upon request. ____________________________________________ Best suggestions: Essay on Deborah, the Judge and prophetess. Also, from this essay, from which you have been just reading, Part 6. PAUL HIS FALSE, CONTRADICTORY, AND CONFUSING TEACHINGS -S. Szpak Part 6 PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE
'The Bible never says husbands ought to exercise authority over their wives / lead them." God calls Adam to give an acount of the debacle in the garden... as though he was responsible for it. Paul exhorts wives to submit to their husbands... as though husbands have an authority in marriage that wives don't. Peter exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands, reports that Sarah obeyed Abraham. Both Adam and Abraham seem to go wrong (at least in part) by listening to the voice of their wives... as though they ought to have led their wives in those situations rather than the other way around. Do these count? If not, why not?
And in Genesis 12:12 where God told Abraham to "obey" Sarah? Guess that was just a one time deal? And what about all the women who were hurt because God closed up their wombs because Abimelech had taken Sarah as his wife in Genesis 20:18. Imagine Sarah's pain because she listened to Abraham and played along with the ruse that she was only his sister and not his wife. The harm goes both ways. Do these count? If not, why not?
Part 6 PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE This is sometimes referred to as the deification of a man over a woman in the marriage covenant, which is what Paul supports in this false teaching. This false teaching is serious, and carries over to his false teachings regarding gender in a church setting. Elders must be men, etc. Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.' -excerpt Genesis 3 YLT In Genesis, God speaks of husbands ruling over their wives as a bad thing. It did become a natural tendency for the husband, due to the Fall. But it is a sin. This natural tendency is based on nature, if that makes sense. Men can only see women physically. The women are physically smaller and weaker. This physical view then translates to the spiritual. Men see women as less than men in a spiritual way. This natural tendency can be overcome with the knowledge that men and women are equal in God's sight. Both are stated in Genesis to be made in the image of God. And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God. -1 Corinthians 11 YLT -words of Paul Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. -excerpt Ephesians 5 -words of Paul Paul restates his false teaching in Ephesians 5 above. Paul states that a Christian woman is to submit to an imperfect man, as though that imperfect man was the Christ. So Paul equates a husband, a mere man, to deity. The name for this is deification. deification (in this matter) - The elevation of a married man to a deity (that is, Jesus) that rules over one woman, the man's wife. When Paul writes... But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. ...Paul is ordering Christian wives to violate one of the 10 commandments: ‘You shall have no other gods besides Me.' -Deuteronomy 5 verse 7 Paul states that the woman/wife is to obey the man/husband just as if he is the Christ. In this false teaching the husband then becomes a 'god' that is equal to the Christ. _____________________________________________________________ And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” -excerpt Matthew 22 -words of Jesus If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. -excerpt James 2 NASB Obviously, a husband's neighbor is his wife. Weak men NEED wives that will submit to them. When a real man states: "My wife is my equal. I don't care what anyone says." A weak and/or foolish man regards the above statement as sinful, ignorant, and maybe a few other things. Such a man regards himself as above his wife, in a spiritual way. ____________________________________________________ In Genesis it also states that men and women are created in God's image. Therefore they were spiritually equal. They still are. This is stated in Genesis 1 before the Fall and again in Genesis 5 after the Fall. Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. -excerpt Genesis 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created. -excerpt Genesis 5 As its says above: ...and He blessed them ... In Genesis, neither the man nor the woman is cursed before or after the Fall. The serpent is cursed and the 'ground' is cursed. Even the curse on the ground is lifted in Genesis 8 below: The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. Conclusion Men and women being equal in God's sight, due to both being created in the image of God, contradict Paul's false teaching on the husband being over the wife in marriage. A Christian marriage is two equals working together and submitting to their boss, Jesus.
@@theNightingaleSings718 - Genesis 21:12 is not some blanket statement that Abraham should obey his wife, no, "whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her, because your offspring will be traced through Isaac....." (Gen 21:12). It is dealing with Isaac ("because...") and the covenant promise that Abraham was given. And you misunderstand Biblical Headship. Just because someone is "head" of the household, case in point with Abraham, it does not mean he always does what God says he should do... It is Abraham's failure to trust God and his actions caused those things to happen. Danjoconway is correct when he says that Adam listened to his wife and ate, and that God held him responsible.
“Do these count? If not, why not?” BUT the Bible does not say, in any of the examples you give, that husbands ought to exercise authority over their wives / lead them. Nor does it say this anywhere else. The reason it was wrong for Adam to heed the voice of his wife was that she encouraged him to disobey God’s command. See Genesis 3:17 - God’s criticism of Adam is not that he failed to exercise authority over his wife but that, because he heeded his wife, he ate the fruit in disobedience to God’s command.
This is such a great podcast! Would love you guys to do a reaction to Pastor Landon Schott sermon on women in ministry. It went viral and a lot of reaction to it in the same camp of those with Mike Winger. You guys did a great job communicating points while honoring Mike and his work!
With all due respect to our brother Mike Winger, he’s a pastor before he is an academic. His inadvertent ignorance causes him to misrepresent scholarly views and not engage in faithful dialogue. He prefers dogma over data and thus is unqualified to be upheld as a pioneer on this topic. He is one of the less rational/intellectual apologists. He should stay out of academic space and stick to Sunday messages instead. Still insightful to listen to for devotion and practical Christian life, but def not academic topics.
@@johnygoodwin3441 he attributes a view to Philip Payne by citing from Payne’s book where he is actually articulating the argument of another scholar. This is evidence of quote mining over close reading. And this is just one instance. There are multiple places where he simply misrepresents, or more charitably, does not understand the arguments of those he quotes. For instance, he also challenges Linda Belville on what he sees as her faulty appeal to BDAG for a word definition, but his claim only serves to reveal that he does not understand the distinction in BDAG between word definition and semantic range. That is, in attacking someone else’s scholarship on Greek language, he demonstrates that he does not understand how to engage with some of the most basic tools of scholarship on Greek. These are just basic scholarly mistakes before we even deal with the substance.
I agree with most everything except... because he has so many presuppositions and uses them to engage the texts, I've decided to mostly stop watching him. What good is his instruction if it's not accurate for what any of the authors intended to say, not just with the Biblical, but with scholarly and historical as well. I might listen to find out what sources to seek out on a topic, but I can no longer accept what he says because he has been proven to miss the contexts, to not understand, and to apply presuppositions without recognizing he is doing that.
In 1 Tim 2:9, Paul talks about how women are to dress and adorn their hair. Did priestess of Artemis ware braided hair, pearls, and gold jewelry as a form of piety (and is Paul pushing against this?) Or do you think Paul is wanting wealthier Christian women to not flaunt their wealth? Or is there another option? Thanks!
Good questions, thank you. In first-century conditions, the mention of pearls tell us that the women Paul had in mind were super-rich. Super-rich women in Ephesus would probably have been involved in the cult of Artemis but we cannot say whether they had been priestesses before they were converted to Christ. For fuller discussion, see our article “Part 12 (The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2)”. If you go to the link posted under the video, you’ll see it in the bulleted list of articles. Within that article, the section most relevant to your questions is under the heading ‘Objection 6 - Not a particular kind of woman?’
@ Hello! I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comment :) I’ll look further into your work. I think it’d be worth you doing a podcast or TH-cam series in response to it so people can listen to it on the go. I listened to his work since I tilt more egalitarian, but want to hear arguments from complimentarians to be unbiased. I wad baffled by some of his comments and conclusions. As an example, he claimed that 1 Tim isn’t focused addressing heresies, although the book itself claims otherwise (1 Tim 1:3, 6:20, etc). He also doesn’t really address any work from Lucy Peppiatt, Nijay Gupta, Mike Bird, Sandra Glahn, or Gary Hoag. He dismissed Dr Peppiatt’s thesis in just a few minutes and didn’t even mention her by name, even though her work had been out for a few years by the time he made his 1 Cor 11 video. I did learn new content and insights along the way, but was disappointed by his methods.
The Christian gossip columns really urk me. Its so refreshing to see the guy at ridley ignoring so many real things in culture and wanting instead to engage with gossip columns.
Obviously this isn't an extensive rebuttal video, but even being short I think there's a lot of exactly what you're accusing Mike of. Aside from the terribly condescending tone throughout, the substance of the argument "therefore" making the context of that passage not wide sweeping for women teaching is worth considering...I'm not convinced as Paul goes on to speak about general eldership and their wives, and deacons and their wives (which I'm aware is challenged to be speaking of women deacons not wives of men deacons, but I think we'd see that in Acts 6 where they were told specifically to choose seven men with general qualifications of wisdom and being filled with the Holy Spirit), but my conclusions are subject to being wrong as are yours. My bigger point is that it was emphatically stated that there's no authority structure (maybe I'm mischaracterizing the statements but not willfully), while alluding to 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 7. I'm curious about how you read chapter 11 and getting a good understanding of it because I'm not sure it's easily dismissed, but your appeal to chapter 7 is a good one which I would make if I were coming from your perspective, but I don't think dealing with those passages are where the meat of the discussion is, but they are good points to make, as would be Ephesians 5 from all perspectives (general submission is taught as well as specific wife to husband). I'd mainly be curious to hear your dealing with 1 Peter 3 (seeing that I know your reading of 1 Tim. 2). It seems like what Peter writes completely contradicts your emphatic statements and should at least challenge your condescending and smug demeanor quite a bit and cause a retraction (or even apology as you're urging from Winger) but I'm open to hearing how you read it. I've been wrong many times as I'm sure we all have, and am willing to be humbled when I am...God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble after all, and to your point about Mike, maybe you guys aren't dealing with all of the passages that speak to the subject? God bless
(not this channel) you wrote: but I don't think dealing with those passages are where the meat of the discussion is, but they are good points to make, as would be Ephesians 5 from all perspectives (general submission is taught as well as specific wife to husband). The teaching of a husband ruling over his wife by Paul in Ephesians 5, is a false teaching, which I address in a long post/study. It can be pasted up here.
I know Terran has dealt extensively with all of these passages in his book, and Bartlett probably has as well. Also Terran's website has a ton of content. I think all of this is linked in the description?
“I'd mainly be curious to hear your dealing with 1 Peter 3” In my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video. In that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’. God bless you too.
@@Szpak-123 I'm not sure what you think Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6 mean? I'm open to any substantive interpretation and application that would fit, but I never used the language of ruling over, you did. I see the language of headship and submission spoken of by Paul, and obedience spoken of by Peter. If someone disagrees with those statements (which are surrounded by verses in Peter of submission to governments etc.) then I'll stick with Paul and Peter for sure. The statements are being made in this video that culture is bringing bias that the Scripture doesn't teach, and what I'm suspecting is that's exactly what's going on. We live in a generation that has put women in a position to despise what God has called them to do and be, and we're bending the Word of God to fit culture. Exactly what is being projected is what is going on with the authors of the video. Jude writes of angels not keeping the dwelling places God had for them and it didn't go well for them, and we should have a general culture of humility and submission as well as in the roles God has given individually. Sarah was blessed by obeying her lord (Abraham), just as Abraham was blessed by submitting to his Lord. No one gets out of being subject to the culture of humility and submission. Jesus didn't (Philippians 2) but satan did (Isa. 14) and it is consequential. Women should be lived to encourage them in their submission and men should be submitted to and respected to encourage them in their role to love like Christ.
@@CleansingWater PAUL HIS FALSE, CONTRADICTORY, AND CONFUSING TEACHINGS -S. Szpak Part 6 PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE This is sometimes referred to as the deification of a man over a woman in the marriage covenant, which is what Paul supports in this false teaching. This false teaching is serious, and carries over to his false teachings regarding gender in a church setting. Elders must be men, etc. Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.' -excerpt Genesis 3 YLT In Genesis, God speaks of husbands ruling over their wives as a bad thing. It did become a natural tendency for the husband, due to the Fall. But it is a sin. This natural tendency is based on nature, if that makes sense. Men can only see women physically. The women are physically smaller and weaker. This physical view then translates to the spiritual. Men see women as less than men in a spiritual way. This natural tendency can be overcome with the knowledge that men and women are equal in God's sight. Both are stated in Genesis to be made in the image of God. And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God. -1 Corinthians 11 YLT -words of Paul Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. -excerpt Ephesians 5 -words of Paul Paul restates his false teaching in Ephesians 5 above. Paul states that a Christian woman is to submit to an imperfect man, as though that imperfect man was the Christ. So Paul equates a husband, a mere man, to deity. The name for this is deification. deification (in this matter) - The elevation of a married man to a deity (that is, Jesus) that rules over one woman, the man's wife. When Paul writes... But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. ...Paul is ordering Christian wives to violate one of the 10 commandments: ‘You shall have no other gods besides Me.' -Deuteronomy 5 verse 7 Paul states that the woman/wife is to obey the man/husband just as if he is the Christ. In this false teaching the husband then becomes a 'god' that is equal to the Christ. _____________________________________________________________ And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” -excerpt Matthew 22 -words of Jesus If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. -excerpt James 2 NASB Obviously, a husband's neighbor is his wife. Weak men NEED wives that will submit to them. When a real man states: "My wife is my equal. I don't care what anyone says." A weak and/or foolish man regards the above statement as sinful, ignorant, and maybe a few other things. Such a man regards himself as above his wife, in a spiritual way. ____________________________________________________ In Genesis it also states that men and women are created in God's image. Therefore they were spiritually equal. They still are. This is stated in Genesis 1 before the Fall and again in Genesis 5 after the Fall. Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. -excerpt Genesis 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created. -excerpt Genesis 5 As its says above: ...and He blessed them ... In Genesis, neither the man nor the woman is cursed before or after the Fall. The serpent is cursed and the 'ground' is cursed. Even the curse on the ground is lifted in Genesis 8 below: The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. Conclusion Men and women being equal in God's sight, due to both being created in the image of God, contradict Paul's false teaching on the husband being over the wife in marriage. A Christian marriage is two equals working together and submitting to their boss, Jesus.
Watch again at 19 minutes. The church hasn't been stable on the issue. Up until recently, the church believed women can't lead because they're inferior to men. Complementarianism, like egalitarianism, reflects a new attempt to grapple with Scripture passages after having rejected default interpretations.
@@theNightingaleSings718then please enlighten us on where the church hasn’t been stable? This is only a recent Western European and American phenomenon
The first issue I see is that somehow they claim Mike Winger's view is affected by his own culture and situation. That seems very odd as it is clear that based on history, it is egalitarian that is a direct result of cultural influence, not the other way around. Sure, complementarianism is influenced by culture, however, the main principle of male leadership in the church has clearly been the biblical historical view. Junia didn't teach men per Chrysostom, so she could easily have been ministering to women, common at that time. Also, Michael Burer published a response to Bauckham, Epp, Belleville showing his research stands. 35 new texts, all parallel to rom 16:7 show Paul to mean 'well known to the apostles'. Even egalitarian scholar Craig Keener is realistic, “Given the culture, we also cannot be certain as to the sphere of ministry; perhaps Andronicus and Junia each focused on ministry to their own gender.” So, even if we were to conclude that Junia and Andronicus were in fact counted among “the apostles”, historical and cultural evidence indicates that Junia’s role would not have been identical to that of Andronicus (also John Chrysostom's view). The creation principle doesn't have to apply to all areas. The bible doesn't say so, the verse is relative to the church not to all areas. Context matters, Paul is applying it to this situation. We have clear examples in the Bible OT/NT that show the principle is not universal so to claim the principle has to apply universal is a made up requirement. Lastly, Ephesians does imply a reference to authority. “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." The reference to submit and then head clearly implies some form of authority limited to the husband. There is more to it than just authority but clearly authority is not excluded.
Thank you, Jack, for your good comments, which address some substantive points instead of making personal attacks. You are setting a good example, which I hope others will follow. I’ll respond to them one by one.
“they claim Mike Winger's view is affected by his own culture and situation” BUT if Mike Winger’s view is not affected by his own culture and situation, what is your explanation for his frequent misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what egalitarian scholars have written about Scripture? I do not believe that he does this with malice or dishonesty or that he is unintelligent. What is it that prevents him reading plain English accurately?
“the main principle of male leadership in the church has clearly been the biblical historical view.” BUT the historical interpretations were explicitly based on the cultural, non-biblical idea that women were innately inferior to men, so could not lead in any sphere of life. Both complementarians and egalitarians reject those interpretations, but complementarians have sought new interpretations which would justify retaining the same practices that were based on a wrong view of women.
“Junia didn’t teach men per Chrysostom” BUT that is incorrect. Chrysostom does not say that Junia didn’t teach men. Chrysostom does tell us how he squares Mary of Rome and Priscilla with his interpretation of 1 Tim 2 (which, incidentally, is anachronistic and culturally driven, not at all to his usual standard), but he offers no such explanation in the case of Junia. (I think the misconception about what Chrysostom said about Junia may derive from a loosely worded section in an otherwise mostly good quality article by David Shaw.)
“Junia … Burer published a response … 35 new texts, all parallel to rom 16:7 show Paul to mean 'well known to the apostles'.” BUT Burer’s response was unsound and poorly reasoned. The 35 new texts do not show this. Please see our full article responding to Mike Winger’s part 5 video on women apostles, on Terran’s website. About 25 of Burer’s 35 new texts don’t even use the same Greek construction - they are certainly not parallels to Rom 16:7.
I am egalitarian, but saying Mike's view arises from being American doesn't account for RC and EO historically not ordaining women. Also, going to contemporary sources for how the word 'head' was being used at the time seems pretty solid. New Perspective scholars appeal to contemporary sources for support of their understanding of 'works of law', for example. EDIT: I should have kept watching. They do this exact thing (rightly) for the meaning of 'exercise authority'.
Yes! I realized that Bartlett's point was that Winger looks around for the meaning of "head" from contemporary sources first before doing the obvious: Paul's metaphor is literally right in front of him. Like we can use the word "cloud" in countless metaphors, and it can be used in a bunch of different ways, but the only way to know exactly how it's being used is to look at the CONTEXT of the metaphor. And the context of "head" in Ephesians is not a unilateral, one-way exercising of authority, but mutual and interconnected submission, love and sacrifice. If you miss this, you've missed the point of Ephesians.
Context: at the time, in the times ("the past is a foreign country..."), & in the season of life is a helpful "triangle"/?lens through which parse this type of topic, including writings throughout the Bible...🤔 ('The older fish asked the younger fish, "How's the water?" To which the younger fish reply "What's 'water'?" ')
I think some of your arguments are fairly weak by comparison to be honest. I love your heart and everything in me wants this to be true. But I want to be true to God's word first (as I'm sure you do too). Just one simple example of where I find trouble with your arguments: While there is historical precedent for understanding Junia as a female apostle, this interpretation is more uncertain and less explicitly supported by Paul’s wording in Romans 16:7, which is more focused on their reputation and influence within the early church. If Paul intended to refer to Junia as an apostle, he would likely have been more explicit in his description. It simply is not clear when Paul was in all other cases clear about who was an apostle. And your paper does not sufficiently counter the use or reasoning used to pick Judas' replacement from “one of the men” (Greek: ἀνδρῶν, “men” or “male individuals”) as a clear requirement. Instead you logically jump to conclude without any evidence based on some pre vs post Pentacost allegory you made... here you are reading into the text to pursue an unsupported claim of some supposed hidden truth.
They already said Junia was obviously not one of the 12, who who obviously all men, and this was very likely on purpose. However, getting to the _reason_ that the 12 were all male doesn't necessarily tell us that Junia must not be "an apostle," in the broader sense discussed in this video.
WADR, your own reasoning is no stronger. 1 -- The same sentence (Acts 1:21) that requires "men" also requires someone that had been with them the whole time, which would rule out Paul. 2 -- I think you overstate the clarity with which Paul otherwise designated "apostles." It is more clear that Junia and Andronicus were apostles than Silvanus and Timothy; nevertheless, that S and T were such, and in the same class as Paul, is reasonably inferred from 1 Thes. 1.1 with 2.7.
@@JosiahTheSiahfollowing your line of reasoning, Junia existence in scripture in no way make clear that the early church ordained women. That verse isn’t even clear about what role Junia actual had and to claim otherwise is dishonest.
@@michaelsterling2650 Hi there! I haven't given any reasoning. All I did was point out the faulty conclusion in the original comment, and mentioned that the commenter's concerns had indeed been discussed in the video. At any rate, I certainly haven't presented a line of reasoning.
Richard Middleton has a very interesting take on the whole Isaac-sacrificing story. Essentially Abraham should have pushed back on God's apparent demand that he be killed, and therefore showed he didnt really understand the character of God very much. And because of his willingness to execute his son, both Sarah and Isaac become estranged from him.
20:40 Mutual regarding the body is not equivalent to headship. 1 Peter 3:5-6 KJV - For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Why do you ignore what Peter instructed?
They address it in their lengthy, detailed response articles at Terran's site. The address is available in the extended description of the video above. Briefly, the context shows that Peter's instructions are evangelistic: They are to help wives win over unbelieving husbands, and for Christian households to win over unbelieving cultures. It is interesting (to me, at least) that several of the epistles most involved in this debate specifically involve believers in Asia.
@@Norrin777Radd Peters instructions are in line with what Paul wrote in Eph 5. You are attempting to redirect to a cultural mindset and that is simply not in the text. The context or anchor in the text as to why -- is directly connected to Abraham and Sarah. Frequently the writers go back to Genesis for the foundation for their doctrine (as did Jesus). Equal in nature is not the same as equal in order or character traits. Scriptures state that Christ submitted to the Father, The Church is to submit to the head who is Christ Jesus Wives are submit to their husbands
@@matthewford4050 Why are so many people so concerned with authority and submission when Jesus was really concerned about love? And no, not some "wishy washy" and enabling, possessive "love", but the fierce kind of love that sacrifices, dies for, and honors the loved one. I dare those obsessed with authority to try on that command of Jesus instead of pathetic power struggles. Many women understand. "Those who lose their life for my sake will find it."
“Why do you ignore what Peter instructed?” BUT (1) Peter does not instruct men to rule their wives, exercise authority over them or lead them. Those are man-made commands which are not found anywhere in Scripture. (2) We don’t ignore what Peter instructed. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video; within that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’. And in my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter.
Greek of Eph 5 does not say christ submitted to the Father. Ho theos is the word. Why ignore Eph 5 21? Why deny part of God's word. What can you do with only your head without ur limbs, stomach, heart, intestines? Why did you read hierarchy into the word head? Instead of just head body metaphor. The 2 are one. Like Christ and God are one. Ephesians 5 into Ephesians 6 is about how Christian community should live in Christ. However, Eph 5 22 in Greek has no verb "submit". There's an ellipsis... its wives as to husbands... wives what? That's taken from Eph 5 21... submit one to another. So husbands and wives submit one to another. No headship. The culmination of the marriage advice is Eph 5: 31, reinforcing Gen 2:24, God's original design. No headship. The Jewish and Greco- Roman guys... it was radical for them to hear they ought to love the wives as Christ loved the church... i.e SACRIFICIALLY... no headship. Jesus said the same Matt 10:8. Awesome stuff. Look at this awesome theology through a Jesus lens. Not thru incorrect English translations and interpretation via a carnal lens. Adopt the mind of Christ. Not a worldly Genesis 3 cultural indoctrination. Much insight at Www.tru316.com
@@Wren_Farthing but it is pertinent to the idea of authority and there are gender based hierarchies expressed in scripture. So, it isn’t the end of an argument, but certainly part of it.
@@michaelsterling2650 I recognize it's regarded that way by some, but there are theological and cultural answers to the question that don't have to do with male authority. In my experience with the gender hierarchy conversation the disciples being exclusively male is usually thrown in as an "extra" argument, and often it isn't brought up at all.
@ As I said, it isn’t the defining argument, but it certainly can be, and is, used as an example in a litany of examples that shows an overarching theme in the scripture that we can use to come to know a truth. Let’s use the concept of the trinity, for example. There are many parts of the scripture that show us that the trinity is the true nature of God. Some are highly compelling and on the nose, others are more complimentary to total truth claim but shouldn’t be dismissed.
As for men having authority in the home..consider Mary , Jesus mother. The angel spoke to her first, she didn't consult her father or her husband to be, or any brothers she may have had, but said to the angel herself...' let it be as you say'.
Also the Samson matter. And there was a man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was infertile and had not given birth to any children. Then the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold now, you are infertile and have not given birth; but you will conceive and give birth to a son. And now, be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing. For behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he will begin to save Israel from the hands of the Philistines.” Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. -excerpt Judges 13
I appreciate the willingness to engage with Wingers work on this matter and I welcome the scholarly debate, but I have to say, I did not expect such arrogant belittlement from Christian scholars and I did not expect such blatant straw manning, partially putting words in wingers mouth
This video simply reinforces mike's point that the egalitarian position doesn't have arguments, sorry to see that and from well-situated scholars at that. And to put differences in interpretation down as Mike simply not reading the context again portrays an arrogance I am sorry to see in Christian scholars. I'd love to hear a convincing case for egalitarianism. I grew up under women leadership and still frequent circles and institutions that hold to that position. It would be so much easier to embrace that doctrine. But if this is the best attempt to undergird the position with scripture, then I guess I'll have to remain a complementarian.
@@cirdan4170 you wrote: I'd love to hear a convincing case for egalitarianism. Paul never walked with Jesus. Paul taught a hierarchical and false view of Christianity. Men over women. Men over men. I've looked and written informally on this. Once you see it, you can't un-see it. ________________________________________________________ I suggest my free informal postable essay on Deborah. The New Testament, as we know it, wasn't compiled until about 400 A.D. The Christians of the first century only had the Old Testament. Anyone who read what we now call Judges 4, knew a woman could be a Judge over Israel.
“I did not expect such blatant straw manning, partially putting words in wingers mouth” BUT what strawmanning did I or Terran do? You do not provide any example. We were careful to represent him accurately in our fourteen articles which respond to his videos and we always invited correction. When a few people wrote in with queries, we promptly made any needed corrections. If any more are needed, we will be happy to make them.
@@AndrewBartlett-k7x Claiming that Winger expects men to take authority over wives is the exact opposite he does. He is clear in that he shows the bible calls on wifes to submit not on husbands to subue them. That is quite a strong misquote.
@@cirdan4170 “Claiming that Winger expects men to take authority over wives is the exact opposite he does. He is clear in that he shows the bible calls on wifes to submit not on husbands to subue them. That is quite a strong misquote.” BUT please listen again to the interview. We did not say either that Mike Winger expects men to “subdue” their wives or that he expects them to “take authority over” their wives (whether in the sense of “subdue” or in any other sense). In our Part 8 response article we said: “the Bible nowhere commands husbands to make their wives submit. Mike correctly says this in his next video (Part 9: 0hr53mins).” Here is how I explained his view in our interview at around 15:40: “he is very keen that husbands should exercise authority over their wives: he says husbands are the higher authority in the marriage and he says they should take the decisions and this is really important.” I believe that to be an accurate reflection of Mike Winger’s teaching. He says the “authority structure” in marriage “really matters”, because it “radically affects most people” - the husband’s authority is “super important” and he “can’t overstate the practical impact of getting this topic wrong”. See the Part 8 Winger video, the Lesson Overview and the first few minutes of Part 8. If it is “super important”, with “practical impact”, he must mean that the husband’s authority is to be exercised. (That is not the same thing as forcing submission, which we have never suggested is Mike’s view.)
The way I see it, if Egalitarianism is wrong, then there is an issue of church governance that is in err or even sinful, but if Complimentarianism is wrong then what Christ accomplished on the cross is partially denied. So if the first position is wrong, there is disorder. If the second is wrong, the Gospel itself is misrepresented. Thus best to err on the side of the first.
Complementarianism The priesthood of the New Covenant is a 2-tiered priesthood based on birthright. That false and confusing teaching, that states Christian women are less than Christian men in a spiritual way, but they really aren't, but they really are. The complementarian teaching prohibits a Christian woman from holding certain positions in a church. They can't be elders neither can they teach men. So why is that? The false teaching makes it clear that the priesthood of the New Covenant is tiered. There is a hierarchy. Those that are higher, the men, can be in leadership positions, like elder. They can teach other men. Those in the lower tier can not be in leadership positions, like elder. They are prohibited from teaching men, because the men are in the higher tier. It wouldn't make any sense. A new believer is automatically assigned their level, higher or lower, at the moment of salvation, as a birthright. Their gender determines their tier. A Christian can not move to a higher or lower tier. A Christian that is in the lower tier (woman) is not allowed to complain of the tier she was placed in. That would be sin, because God made her a woman by His choice. She should accept and also embrace her position in the lower tier. A church, is either a group of Christian men or a group of Christian men and women. A church can never be a group of Christian women, because it would be a group of only those in the lower tier. It would have no elders. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. -excerpt 1 Peter 2 Since the teaching states that women are spiritually inferior to men, but they aren't, but they are, when did that start? But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. -excerpt 1 Timothy 2 It started with the first woman. She was deceived, and sinned because of it. So we have a teaching that accepts that men and women are fallen beings. Both genders are sinful by nature. However women are different. They are lacking the ability that men have to judge if some situation, some concept or teaching is sinful. This inability was passed down from Eve to all women. It remains to this day. A woman in our time was 'lacking' from birth, even from the womb. So what can be done? Nothing according to Complementarianism. The teaching states that even an anointing of that powerful masculine being called the Holy Spirit, is just not sufficient. It states that even the Holy Spirit can not elevate even one Christian woman to the spiritually superior level of a Christian man.
Mike Winger is 100% right. Its amazing how much effort you have to put into making the Scriptures say the opposite of what they say. There is no "end" of patriarchy, for it is God’s social order. Egalitarians do need to repent.
Part of the patriarchal system included men having more than one wife and often one or more concubines. If patriarchy has not ended, do you also support husbands being the head of more than one wife? Do you support husbands having concubines? Women on the side to produce more and more heirs? Because that is becoming more and more common in the church. I have a friend who finally divorced her abusive husband, but not until he told her he was taking a second wife because.....patriarchy.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed. A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases. Refusal to accept a Judge's verdict on any matter, resulted in execution, according to Deuteronomy. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false. Full read time: 10 minutes postable here
@@c.m.granger6870 I guess you need to define for me what you mean by "Biblical patriarchy," because all of the Biblical patriarchs had more than wife or had sex with a slave or servant woman. Do the patriarchs of the Bible not illustrate what Biblical patriarchy is? Please quote for me the list of God's rules for what a patriarch is supposed to be and explain how did the patriarchs in the OT got it so wrong.
@theNightingaleSings718 - where do you get that "patriarchy" must/always includes more than one wife? Perhaps the OP means something different to 20th C writers when they use this word?
I hope he will learn from the knowledge of scholars like you. Sometimes I wonder whether his videos are informed by scholarship, it seems rarely to be the case.
Complementarian vs. egalitarian is a modern discussion. Just as episcopal vs. congregational. All these are historical and cultural issues, part of this age. I don't know any denominations that are completely in line with the way the first century believers did things. All have some number of adaptations to millennia of change. The Spirit is not bound by these conversations. He will use the resources he has available to get the gospel out.
Right.. complementarianism vs egalitarianism is a modern discussion because for the 1700 years prior to that, women were just accepted inferior. A course correction is needed in the western church to get it back to where it was first century (honoring of female apostles)
@@massiefamily7229 Tertullian was a man of his historical context as well. Today is today, and the evidence is that the Spirit is using women to get his work done, particularly in places where men aren't stepping up. But if some men and women want traditional, then the Spirit will use that as well. What matters is saving for the eternal. In the eternal, 'there is neither male nor female' and all are equal.
There's no scriptural basis for women not being able to teach or preach other than decontextualized references to obnoxious women at specific types of churches in his day. Phoebe, Priscilla and them show pretty clearly that women are able to do so
The demeanor the peimary host displays is telling. He makes grimaces and says things like Mike Winger is "pushing" something. It's almost like theyre demeaning he views, which were largely church views for decades,! Mike Winger is very humble and willing to discuss biblical topics. He also stated he'd wished he found evidence for women pastors but could not. I listened to much if his insightful exegesis of scripture. You men prattle on and give what you feel should be the truth with no evidence. So what if scriptures say Priscilla was a deaconess which means servant? Or that she's mentioned first a couple of times before her husband Aquilla? At other times Priscilla is mentioned second. The fact is when confronting Apollos she was with her husband who helped the encounter. Also Juneia was a servant too as well as other women, these were prominent women and perhaps leaders in rheir businesses. They supported the church and were learned to read Paul's epistles at times. They had money and prestige and could influence, but that doesn't mean they were pastors of house churches or interpreted the bible for men or women laity. Theoughout the Bible, only men were Rabbis. Priestesses were in Pagan religions. Point is, these prominent women had large houses to hold church gatherings and they were in charge of their own households and gave hospitality. So don't read into scriptures what you can't provide in black and white. Mike Winger does good scholarly work and you're all probably jealous!
you wrote: He also stated he'd wished he found evidence for women pastors but could not. The Judges. Deborah, Judges 4 and 5. In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’ -excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
@@Szpak-123 Few questions: 1) Did God raise up Deborah in the same way He did the other judges who exercised leadership over men? Or was this because there was no man who was godly. Checkout the language that indicates God's role in raising up each judge... 2) Did Deborah assert leadership for herself or give priority to a man (Judges 4:6-6)? 3) Was Deborah's prophetic ministry and instruction public or private (Judges 4:5) - did she go out and publicly proclaim the word of the Lord or privately? (Judges 4:6; 14). 4) What is different between Deborah's prophetic ministry and the priestly ministry of the OT? Some thoughts on
@@daveyo8221 Full essay read time: 10 minutes Postable here. Were Deborah AND Barak Judges? Was Barak a Judge? Was Deborah a Judge? And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them. -excerpt Judges 2 Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment. -excerpt Judges 4 The peasantry came to an end, they came to an end in Israel, Until I, Deborah, arose, Until I arose, a mother in Israel. -excerpt Judges 5 Tola and Jair were also Judges. ..., rose up to save Israel... Now after Abimelech died, Tola the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar, rose up to save Israel; and he lived in Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim. He judged Israel for twenty-three years. Then he died and was buried in Shamir. ...rose up and judged Israel... After him, Jair the Gileadite rose up and judged Israel for twenty-two years. And he had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys, and they had thirty cities in the land of Gilead that are called Havvoth-jair to this day. And Jair died and was buried in Kamon. -excerpt Judges 10 The same phrasing is used regarding Deborah, Tola and Jair. They were all Judges. Deborah: Until I, Deborah, arose, Until I arose... Tola: "...rose up..." Jair: "...rose up..."
Barak is never referred to as a Judge. He was commander of the army. Deborah was the Judge over Israel at this time. She knew it, and so did Barak. Now she sent word and summoned Barak... -excerpt Judges 4 (above) Deborah summoning Barak. She gave the order for the battle to begin that Israel won. Then Deborah said to Barak, “Arise! For this is the day on which the Lord has handed Sisera over to you... -excerpt Judges 4 (above) Deborah ordering Barak. CONCLUSION Deborah was a Judge. Barak was not a Judge.
@Szpak-123 - yes, true, but a bit different wording when it comes to individually introducing some of the judges including Deborah. But we may disagree on the significance of this. And no, I didn't mean to imply Barak was a judge. Perhaps more importantly, was Deborah's judging public or in private? See 4:5-6. Private. Did you notice that it was not her who went to battle, and notice the rebuke of Barak in 4:6-9, who was to lead the army but was shying away from what God instructed him to do, and so therefore how God would use a woman (not even Deborah) instead. No, Deborah is a rebuke of the passivity of men to the leadership task given them, not somehow a model of women as NT Pastors.
@@Norrin777Radd Paul provides instructions to the husbands and wives regarding their relationship and uses the relationship of the church and Jesus Christ as the model. Are you suggesting that the Church is equal to Jesus? The Ante-Nicene fathers understood three main categories. 1. The nature of the person 2. The characteristics specific to the person 3. The order or authority specific to the person For example, The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit are 1 nature -- God Each has specific characteristics, i.e. Jesus died and rose from the dead, but the Father and Holy spirit did not Each has specific order/authority, The Father is head of Christ, etc. 1 Cor 11 shows us this: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Connecting this to Eph 5 22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 1. Wives submit to husbands 2. For (connected to wives submit) the husband is the head of the wife 3. Even as (connected to above) Christ is the head of the church 4. Therefore (connected to the above) as the church is SUBJECT unto Christ 5. So let (connected to example of the church and Christ) the wives be to their own husbands in EVERY thing. Just as the church should be subject to Christ in EVERY thing. IF head does not imply authority, then this means the Church is not subject to the authority of Christ
@@matthewford4050 The context of 1 Cor. 11 is not about "authority." The only time authority is used there, it says that "the woman has authority over her own head." "Authority" is never mentioned in Eph. 5. The instructions to the man are to submit to other believers, including his wife (5:21), and to love, serve, and care for his wife (5:28, 33). The instructions to the wife are to submit to other believers (5:21), specifically to her husband (5:22, 24), and to respect her husband (5:33). The opinions of the ante-Nicene Fathers are irrelevant, since they were tied to the anti-Biblical notion that women are intrinsically inferior to men. The fact that head =/= authority in these passages is irrelevant to the fact that the Church is under Christ's authority, since it is shown elsewhere.
@@Norrin777Radd Looks like my comment was deleted. In Eph 5:22 and then in 5:23 and 24 talks about wives being "subject" unto their own husbands in the same manner that the church is subject unto Christ. Are you saying that Jesus Christ submits to the church? Submission and subjection inherently have the idea of authority. but more specifically the use of subjection in the verse 24. The Greek word for "subject" in verse 24 means: This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non military use, this would be voluntary. The wife is to willingly yield/submit to the authority of her husband in the same way that the Church willingly subjects her self to Jesus Christ. Reverting to verse 21 for a universal submission clause is simply wrong. Verses 22,23,24 provide clear guidance for husbands and wives.
@@matthewford4050 Part 6 PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE This is sometimes referred to as the deification of a man over a woman in the marriage covenant, which is what Paul supports in this false teaching. This false teaching is serious, and carries over to his false teachings regarding gender in a church setting. Elders must be men, etc. Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.' -excerpt Genesis 3 YLT In Genesis, God speaks of husbands ruling over their wives as a bad thing. It did become a natural tendency for the husband, due to the Fall. But it is a sin. This natural tendency is based on nature, if that makes sense. Men can only see women physically. The women are physically smaller and weaker. This physical view then translates to the spiritual. Men see women as less than men in a spiritual way. This natural tendency can be overcome with the knowledge that men and women are equal in God's sight. Both are stated in Genesis to be made in the image of God. And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God. -1 Corinthians 11 YLT -words of Paul Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. -excerpt Ephesians 5 -words of Paul Paul restates his false teaching in Ephesians 5 above. Paul states that a Christian woman is to submit to an imperfect man, as though that imperfect man was the Christ. So Paul equates a husband, a mere man, to deity. The name for this is deification. deification (in this matter) - The elevation of a married man to a deity (that is, Jesus) that rules over one woman, the man's wife. When Paul writes... But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. ...Paul is ordering Christian wives to violate one of the 10 commandments: ‘You shall have no other gods besides Me.' -Deuteronomy 5 verse 7 Paul states that the woman/wife is to obey the man/husband just as if he is the Christ. In this false teaching the husband then becomes a 'god' that is equal to the Christ. _____________________________________________________________ And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” -excerpt Matthew 22 -words of Jesus If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. -excerpt James 2 NASB Obviously, a husband's neighbor is his wife. Weak men NEED wives that will submit to them. When a real man states: "My wife is my equal. I don't care what anyone says." A weak and/or foolish man regards the above statement as sinful, ignorant, and maybe a few other things. Such a man regards himself as above his wife, in a spiritual way. ____________________________________________________ In Genesis it also states that men and women are created in God's image. Therefore they were spiritually equal. They still are. This is stated in Genesis 1 before the Fall and again in Genesis 5 after the Fall. Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. -excerpt Genesis 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created. -excerpt Genesis 5 As its says above: ...and He blessed them ... In Genesis, neither the man nor the woman is cursed before or after the Fall. The serpent is cursed and the 'ground' is cursed. Even the curse on the ground is lifted in Genesis 8 below: The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. Conclusion Men and women being equal in God's sight, due to both being created in the image of God, contradict Paul's false teaching on the husband being over the wife in marriage. A Christian marriage is two equals working together and submitting to their boss, Jesus.
The purpose of the video was not to persuade anyone to change their mind. To do that, it would have had to be as long as Mike’s videos (43 hours). The purpose was to indicate that there are issues with the reliability of Mike’s work and to introduce our detailed articles. We invite you to read them and pray that you will be blessed in doing so.
If you were able to take the time to watch Mike's videos, I think you should take the smaller amount of time needed to read at least some of the response articles from Terran and Andrew.
33:13 this completely mischaracterizes Mike Winger type complementarians. I’ll assume that this is just due to ignorance, but winger is definitely not a hyper-masculine type guy concerned with men appearing manly. I can say after listening to lots of his videos - agreeing and disagreeing with many positions- this insinuation is unfair to him. He genuinely takes a posture of trying to hold to what he *sees scripture teaching. Sure, he could be wrong. But he didn’t land on complementarianism out of a concern for not ‘watering down masculinity”. This is an incredibly weak criticism. Would rather see more substantive criticism dealing with the concerns he raises with the scholarship. Don’t just say he doesn’t have the “background”, but share the background he’s missing. Disappointing.
Those of us here who hold to the mutualist view also are genuinely taking the posture of trying to hold to what we see as the Scripture teaching. I have many friends who do believe that taking away the absolute authority of men is part of the "feminization" of the church and is why men attend church in lower numbers than women. Some churches go to great lengths to do activities that appeal mostly to men like axe throwing and cars competitons with oversized wheels. Meanwhile women do womanly things like get their hair and nails done and learn how to dress attractively for their man. I don't like painting my nails....waste of time and money. Same with make-up. And I've been married 40 years to a man who cooks and sews better than I do. But there is no doubt he is a man. We submit one to the other. We share equal authority. Dr. Mike Davis does an excellent teaching series on men/women including how patriarchy/hierarchy (what some call complementarian) skews views on masculinity and femininty. You can find it on his youtube channel KICTV. I think it is around episode 54 or 55. Being in authority over others is not what makes men men. Not talking about hyper-masculinity here, just plain old what makes a man a man.
A tweet from MW: "Christian men are faced with two evils in our culture: On one side we have the abandonment of manhood as if manliness were inherently brutish, oppressive to women, toxic, and something to be ashamed of. On the other side we have carnal manliness. Narcissism and pride dressed up as virtue. Machismo with no fear of God. This kind of thing is growing at an alarming rate, as if in response to the emasculation of western society. It’s often correct in its criticisms of culture but not in its solutions." It sounds like to me that he sees both the "abandonment of manhood" and "carnal manliness" as a response to the "emasculation of western society," and I presume the western church. In other words, in keeping with his voluminous teaching, claiming women to be equal in authority to men "emasculates" men.
So . . . it's three against . . . zero! Did you superb scholars and authors even invite Mike Winger to discuss with you? I am amazed you would have three in agreement without including a scholar of stature similar to you to represent the complementarian view.
Terran and Andrew have repeatedly asked Winger to dialogue with them, and he has declined. This is only a surface-scratching introduction: 43 MINUTES as opposed to Winger's famous videos totally over 43 HOURS, and Terran and Andrew's detailed written responses.
Have u concluded he wasnt invited? Terran Bartlett Brue Fleming Nick Quient Mike davis What ur Pastor Didnt tell you have all invited him. He declined despite repeatedly claiming he'd love to hear and he'd "love push back".
@@_shaylamarr My original response has disappeared??? "most wives in complementarian marriages"???? I am very happy 😊 in this situation - definitely no spiritual abuse, & my husband gives me lots of support to be myself - I love being protected & cared for, being the home maker & not the one to has to bring in an income. 💒
@@_shaylamarrI’m 100% complimentarian and can defend it with scripture confidently. There is absolutely no abuse in my marriage. My husband is very supportive of me in every way. I would urge you not to broad brush and make accusations of people with differing views than you.
This is pure egalitarian cope. It’s still amazing to me that you guys pretend you have church history on your side. Your arguments are also very weak. Let's say you're right that Junia was an apostle. Let's say she was a woman. You dismiss the idea (14:05) that she couldn't have been a courier apostle, because that wouldn't have gotten her arrested... what a ludicrous notion. Not only would tabellariī have run the risk of sedition, but perhaps - gasp! - she was arrested for doing something other than being a courier. You don't even consider that for the very obvious reason that you NEED her to be a pioneering apostle, assuming you're right about all your other assumptions. And that this one solitary verse is enough to justify this comical egalitarian house of cards.
Why would she NOT be an apostle? The grammar at least leans that way, and there are no Scriptures prohibiting women from being apostles or any other ministry.
How did one conclude he wasn't approached? If you look them up the following have invited Winger to dialogue. He declined. Terran Bartlett Brue Fleming Nick Quient Mike davis What ur Pastor Didnt tell you
I believe they would say that Scripture shows that women can hold any ministry roles that men can hold. Whether or not a ceremonial priesthood is even a Biblically supportable New Covenant ministry is a discussion in its own right.
I spent 30+ hours studying and trying to respond to just one of Terran Williams' responses to Winger. I felt like I was being pranked, like... "he can't actually believe this is a good argument, can he? Surely he's just messing with us... right?" I don't think he was messing with us. I know he was sincere. But it was difficult to maintain that disposition throughout. The article was so triumphalist in tone, and then it argued in red herrings and strawmen. It took 30+ hours because there was so much (in my opinion) egregious error to respond to. Truly a baffling experience. When I argue, I like to think I'm pretty self-critical. I often think, "No, that won't be persuasive. I can already answer this argument from their own perspective. I need to frame it better/differently." It seemed to me like Williams gave NO thought to how complementarians would see and respond to his arguments.
Terran and Andrew were not specifically presenting the egal. case. Their articles can work that way, but they were mainly framed as responses to Mike Winger. I was a comp. for 20-ish years and have been egal. for the last 20+. Can you give me an example of one of their arguments and how you think a comp. would counter?
“red herrings … strawmen” BUT you don’t say which article you were reading, or identify the “red herrings” or the “strawmen”. We would be very interested to learn more about your concerns. We always invite correction. If you write to us with your detailed comments at the address given in the article, we will be pleased to consider them.
Hermeneutics prioritizes the explicit before what may be implicite. Interprets details in light of the whole expressed design and order of creation as revealed by its designer. Gods purpose is manifest in the compliance of Divine order. Anthrocentric reasoning has not faith as its priority as God has required for reasoning to be rational. Lack of faith in what God has said is rebellion and the cause of strife ,division and disorder.
That whole rant which ends at about 20 minutes was incredible. I don't know how you could miss the clear teaching for husbands to have authority. It's like when Justin Martyr was going around and having debates without having all the theology from the epistles. It's as though someone removed them from your bible and you simply haven't read them. You gentlemen make alot of Mike Winger's modern cultural context, while not realizing that your own views are a product of your modern cultural context and completely out of step with the church throughout history.
The only church history that should take priority here is the new church history being chartered in the New Testament. Women are welcomes into the priesthood along with men. They are clearly to prophesy and teach as are men. The clear teaching in this new church is not about who has authority over the other, but the one anotherism of submitting one to another....men to women and women to men; men to men and women to women.
Please view that section again and pay closer attention. What Andrew said was that men are never told to be leaders, to exercise authority, etc. w.r.t. women. This is literally true. If you believe it is not, please cite a specific example of men being told to exercise authority over women or wives.
@@Norrin777Radd Are you serious? Are you really hanging your argument on the requirement of an explicit statement? If modern cultural context is irrelevant, then they should not have made such a fuss over it. You're debating them on this point now, not me.
@@Norrin777RaddThe presuppositions are strong with this one. Anyone who blames especially Mike Bird of being influenced by the current culture really has not actually paid any attention to Bird prior to. My favorite thing about mutualists is that they always go back to the 1st century Middle Eastern or Mediterranean contexts to figure out what the intent of the author was rather than smothering the text with presuppositions based in later "church fathers" and church traditions.
Thank you! I never heard of Mike Winger until this podcast and I looked him up: "Mike Winger is the featured teacher of BibleThinker online ministry. He graduated from the School of Ministry at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and was ordained in 2006. He has since served in various ministries with a primary focus on being a pastor for the youth, up until a few years ago when the growth and the demands of his online ministry have significantly increased."" Yeah, I don't think he has any training in bible languages. Scary so many are listening to him.
Two issues: Logically, there must be a way to make a decision in a marriage, and you can't do it through majority rule. Consensus is wonderful if you can manage it. But ultimately, you need a way to decide if consensus does not emerge. Consensus can only be enforced by threats of leaving. Whoever is more willing to get divorced is in charge. If divorce is not an option and consensus does not emerge, then the only way to get a choice made, is to choose one of the two to be in charge. Traditionwise, this is hard to accept since you are saying the whole church, every branch, was totally wrong from very shortly after the apostles until very recently.
1. The underlying assumption is that an agreement must be made and partners can’t just resolve the conflict by agreeing to disagree. 2. The position is that the EARLY church had the egalitarian view and eventually succumbed to the surrounding patriarchy of the time.
Both of the issues you raised sound a bit like shortcuts for the sake of simplicity and personal comfort. To your first point, you're suggesting a hierarchical program to mitigate marital disagreements, but the manipulative tactics you describe the parties using to get their way are characteristic of a marriage mired in sin. In a marriage between Christians, we assume two people indwelled by the Holy Spirit, sensitive to conviction of their sin, open to rebuke and desirous of having their hearts transformed. Of all couples, we should expect a Christian one to be most capable of working through a disagreement. In a situation where one of both parties are committed to sinful behavior, there is a much deeper problem to be addressed than the isolated disagreement they're in at the moment. Giving one of them exclusive license to override the will of the other is not only a terrible "solution" in the short term, it is going to deepen the marital fracturing in the long run. This is especially true if the one holding the license is the one who is in sin, because it entitles him to persist in it. As for your second issue, the trouble with clinging to tradition is that it can blind you to the truth. It hasn't actually been the WHOLE church who has held to gender hierarchy theology, but it wouldn't matter if it had been. Our commitment is not to tradition, it is to truth, and we should hold our beliefs with the humble recognition of our own fallibility, and that of our forefathers.
If you can't manage consensus in your marriage, you weren't ready to get married in the first place. Consensus decision-making isn't hard. If you can't do it, that something about you, not about the problem this particular strategy of decision making.
@Apollos_Christian_Apologetics you can agree to disagree on tons of things, but plenty of things there does need to be agreement about, like what rules for the kids
Excuse the ramble, but here is a reaction to this interesting discussion: I have many reasons for holding a complimentarian view although I don't follow Mike Winger and am holding this view in an egalitarian church world. Children. Child-bearing. When women in their weakness as childbearers and rearers are fecond and living in a Christian marriage where this is valued, it takes enormous concentration, collaboration, and energy. I believe the restrictions of womans' responsibilities in ministry are directly related to this aspect of life and relationships. There is precious freedom for the ordinary and extraordinary daily needs of ministring to elderly parents, church family, and children. Not holding an official position of leadership is a protective measure so burden upon burden is not piled higher, either from within a woman or from outside expectations. Home is hard labor but it is rich ministry. Proverbs 31 woman reigns as a "home despot" from her home-base, not the church. Who ministers in church? Anna prophetess receiving Baby Jesus. Widow. Chilldless. Devoted and highly-esteemed. With exceptions like this and the Judge Deborah, context is everything. Jael killed at home with a tent-peg, not a sword. It was perfectly right, but a shame for the men who should have taken the lead into battle. It's wrong to infer limitations of roles to belief women are inferior. I never heard that but I see the aspect of being a weaker vessel which seems not acceptable in the egalitarian postion. Anyway, the formost cause of death worldwide is children in their mother's womb by abortion. Millions every year. If these children were with us, the balance of time to raise and teach them from loving homes/societies then the church dynamic would shift entirely. In China, the One-Child policy robbed families and would easily allow leadership by women who have fewer respinsibilitiies there. I don't see it as a plus though.
Have you ever done a search of Mother and father and parents and looked at what responsibilities are given to each? Once a child is weaned, both parents are equally expected to rear, instruct, and discipline the children. The only timeperiod where there is a lopsided burden BIBLICALLY on women is when the child is breastfeeding. After that, the Biblical expectations are equal for both parents.
My kids benefitted from me working outside the home. I worked night shifts, and my husband days. We worked opposite nights/days so one of us was always home with our kids. They were never in outside childcare. The only times they had "babysitters" was when my husband and I would go out together. Consequently, my husband has probably changed almost as many diapers as I have. I did breastfeed, but also pumped so I could freeze my milk for when I wasn't home. Our kids had the attention of both parents. My husband benefitted because he didn't feel like he was missing out because he wasn't the sole earner. And I didn't feel like doing dishes for the millionth time was my responsibility alone. As for the weaker vessel? That may have been a reference to women in that society having less options for financial security other than marriage. There is truth that in general, men are physically stronger regarding muscle strength than women. But women tend to be physcially stronger when it comes to the immune system or bearing physical pain without complaint. There really isn't one "stronger" than the other, just each stronger in differing ways. Undoubtedly child care takes enormous concentration, collaboration, and energy as you stated. That's why both parents need to share the burden and the blessing. It is too much for one person. And P.S......we also homeschooled. It was all very hard work, but well worth it. It was the toughest job I ever loved.
You want to meet or talk with him to change his errors. Don't pretend that lay Christians mistake your acerbic patronising as brotherly. Mike's free online videos may rancour with your scholarly foundations, but he serves God too. He doesn't agree with you. Leave it alone.
This is unbelievable, its like they want Paul to talk to us like we are so stupid that don't know what authority means. Thats their whole basis. "It does expressly say that". 😲😮😢
We know what authority is, but Paul didn't use a word meaning authority. If he had meant authority he would have chosen the Greek word "archon," instead of "kephale." Kephale is not synonymous with "authority." If you want an answer as to who has authority over the other in marriage, read 1 Corinthians 7, Paul's longest teaching on marital relationship. Both husband and wife have authority over each and both are called to submit one to the other.
We know what authority means. "Kephale" may or may not mean authority, depending on context; unlike the case in English and German and even Hebrew, it relatively rarely carries that sense. "Authenteo" probably does not mean "authority" unless 1 Tim. was written by a 2nd-C pseudepigrapher.
In view of your handle (“Berean”), do you really mean that it doesn’t matter what the inspired words of Scripture actually say? Mike Winger teaches that a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife. But there is no such command in Scripture. Do you agree with adding man-made commands to Scripture? Jesus had some strong words about that (Mark 7).
Winger is not humble enough to engage with those who disagree with him. Winger has debated atheists previously who exposed his presuppositions and faulty thinking and he will never expose himself in that way again it seems.
Mike did a thorough breakdown of what scripture teaches on the subject. He was spot on and never once interjected anything unbiblical as I think you are doing.
@@Szpak-123what are you saying? Paul made no errors. If you don’t believe in the Word of God just say that. It all started in Genesis. However, there are many verses throughout scripture that confirms God’s design for men and for women and who is to lead. Read Genesis 3 and you will see what his design was from the beginning.
@@lesliecooper2261 you wrote: However, there are many verses throughout scripture that confirms God’s design for men and for women and who is to lead. Look at it this way, there are 2 sons of Israel having a hypothetical discussion during the time of Shamgar the son of Anath (Judges 3). One states that there was no possibility that God would ever send a woman to be a Judge over Israel. He states his invalid argument to the other man. We know his argument was invalid because the next Judge was a woman, that is, Deborah. What is the valid argument put forward by the man that believed that God could indeed send a woman as a Judge? If you don't know that argument then you're missing something. Keep in mind that the Judge was the primary pastor/shepherd of God's people during this time period. A Judge could judge homicide cases. A Judge could teach from the Law, that is, scripture, when giving a verdict. The above paragraph is indeed valid. I wrote an informal free essay on Deborah and am very familiar with her story.
@@lesliecooper2261 No, Gen. 3 shows what is the case since the Fall, not the beginning. In Gen. 1 and 2, the actual beginning, man and woman are equal partners with no hierarchy between them. Believers -- those of us who are in Christ the last Adam and are new creations -- should not treat the fallen state as our norm.
This is simply rebellion against what God has stated in His word. He is very clear that women are not to hold leadership roles over men in the church. This doesn't mean women can't lead in other aspects in society - but in the home and in the church body, God has given men the role of leadership. That is the safest and most blessed place for women - I'm a woman, and I'm so tired of the false teaching on this topic that leads to such harm.
@@Apollos_Christian_Apologetics if it clearly said that then there would be no dispute, right? In fact, there was no dispute until about 5 minutes ago in history and those making the new claim haven’t successfully proved the point.
@@michaelsterling2650 That you are unconvinced does not mean the point isn't proven. Pay attention to Bartlett's comments at about 18:54 of the video. Many of our most respected early theologians wrote of the ontological inferiority of women. How is it that these cultural beliefs and attitudes would have had no influence on their understanding of scripture? Many are quick to blame modern Western culture for the egalitarian reading of scripture, while refusing to contend with cultural influence over earlier interpretations. Intellectual honesty requires that we take culture into account, including the cultures that were the backdrop of the Biblical library.
17:00 “there is nowhere in scripture that says a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife.” This is blatantly dishonest. Unless you’re jettisoning parts of the New Testament inconvenient to your position, the Bible speaks on this explicitly. Ephesians 5 says literally “Wives submit to your as husbands _as unto the Lord_ ” In the Old Testament, God addresses men and calls men to leadership. Sure there are exceptions, but as a general rule, men are expected to lead. This is reflected in titles as well. Patriarch is a biblical compound word that describes the biblical concept of the home: _patria_ (from _patēr_ , lit. “Father”) + _archō_ (to have primacy, to lead, to rule). Patriarchy is father-rule, and it’s given by God as a reflection of his own divine Fatherly-kingship. It’s in the Hebrew the LXX translates as Patriarch as well: _Rō'š_ (head, top, chief) _'āḇ_ (Father, head of household)
You say: “This is blatantly dishonest. … the Bible speaks on this explicitly. … “Wives submit to your as husbands as unto the Lord”’. BUT your quote is about what wives ought to do, not about what husbands ought to do. If I say to a woman “you ought to submit to this man”, that is not a statement to the man that he ought to exercise authority over her. The Bible does not anywhere command husbands to exercise authority over their wives. Do you agree with adding man-made commands to Scripture? Jesus had some strong words about that (Mark 7).
@@AndrewBartlett-k7x You’ve made exactly no viable argument. I think it would be simpler for you to just be honest and admit responsibility scares you, and that you want a mother, not a wife. If I say “the apple must be eaten” you will understand that there is necessarily an eater. Jesus and Paul don’t command a man “exercise authority” because you can’t just go out into your back yard and conjure up authority. That makes no sense. No, authority must either be taken or given. If you are committed to non-violence, then willing submission is requisite for authority to be exercised. So the Bible addresses those who are to yield the authority up to their leaders. Also, in Genesis, God literally describes woman’s temptation to subdue her husband, and that regardless, he will rule over her. This is part of God’s plan for the restoration of humanity.
@@justindenlinger6304 “Jesus and Paul don’t command a man ‘exercise authority’.” Are you now agreeing with me that there is no statement in Scripture that a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife? I hope so. I invite you to consider how different the actual commands are: love her Eph 5.25, 33, Col 3.19; love and care for her Eph 5.28-29; be considerate to her 1 Pet 3.7; give her honour 1 Pet 3.7; not refuse intercourse 1 Cor 7.3; not divorce 1 Cor 7.11. If you still think husbands ought to exercise authority over their wives, why do you suppose Paul instructed decision-making by mutual consent in 1 Cor 7:5?
@@justindenlinger6304 In Eph. 5:21, who is in authority? In Phil. 2:3, which person is the "better" one? In Rom. 12:10, who inherently "has" higher honor? ------------ Why should those who are new creations in Christ the Last Adam treat the Fallen state as normative, rather than aspiring to and imitating the equal status in the original creation?
@ You’re missing the point. Commanding someone to exercise authority is meaningless. If I am talking to two people, and I tell one to submit to the other, telling the other person to “exercise authority” is redundant. Do you understand basic logic? Also, God tells Eve explicitly that the man will rule over her. I’d encourage you to stop brown-nosing to escape the responsibility of leadership.
This is wild. Mike Winger doesn't just assume Paul magically changes who he's talking about in 1 Timothy 2. In vs 8 Paul begins talking to BELIEVERS. He is counseling women who would "make a claim to godliness" how to act. Then he goes on to talk about Adam being created first and Eve being the one who was deceived. It seems you chaps are ignoring what Paul says, not Mike.
“Winger doesn’t just assume Paul magically changes who he’s talking about in 1 Timothy 2”. BUT in substance he does. He doesn’t pay attention to the context or follow through Paul's train of thought. For a short explanation, please follow the link that Mike Bird has given to our article ‘Where Mike Winger Went Wrong On Women’ and go down to our heading ‘#12, In 1 Timothy 2 Paul deals with false teaching.’ For a fuller explanation, please follow the links to our full article ‘The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2’.
I wonder, is Mike Winger really the object here? The position you’re arguing against is the position that Jesus’s established church on earth, through the succession of the Apostles, has held from the beginning. Throughout the video you all make authority claims on the matter that you don’t support. You make claims of settled positions that aren’t actually settled, and in fact, are more likely settled in opposition to your position.
Exactly! I'm a woman who is appalled at the false teaching surrounding this issue. Clearly, women are not to hold leadership roles over men in the church.
@ my fiend, how does that contradict what I wrote? Anyone can refute anything, it doesn’t make it authoritative. If it were actually authoritative, the matter would be settled. The matter is not settled in the way they think it is, quite the opposite. It would be like them saying that water is not wet and giving a “comprehensive refutation” and then calling the matter settled. Of course, they’d still be wrong in their claim that water was not wet.
@@michaelsterling2650It’s the implication you make that they are “settled in their opposition” that’s unjustified from a mere summary of their written works. Textbook example of judging a book by its cover 😐
@ why are you writing settled in their opposition in quotes? I never wrote those words to be quoted, nor is that a position I posited. They certainly may be “settled in their opposition”, but that isn’t the point. The point is that the matter at hand is not settled because of their opposition. Make sure that you are attributing to me ideas that I’ve actually expressed.
I'm confused how you come to the conclusion that Ephesians gives the same council to both husbands and wives..... Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church..... Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her........ This is not the same council. You say nowhere from Genesis to Revelation does scripture say for husbands to lead? Is counseling wives to subject themselves to their husbands not also counseling husbands to lead??
“I’m confused how you come to the conclusion that Ephesians gives the same council [counsel] to both husbands and wives” BUT that is not my conclusion and I haven’t said that. Some of the counsel that Paul gives is the same and some of it is different.
“Is counseling wives to subject themselves to their husbands not also counselling husbands to lead?” No, it is not (an instruction to A to do X is not an instruction to B to do Y). And all the more in view of Eph 5.20-22. The best Greek texts read “… always giving thanks to God the Father for all things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, submitting to one another in reverence for Christ, wives to their husbands …” Wives’ submission is an example of the submission to one another that is expected of all believers.
What about Robert Morris and countless others who have committed grave sexual sins? Or Jimmy Evans who holds so tightly to power and authority that it crosses over into the realm of spiritual and emotional abuse? We all sin. We all fall short. We all need each other. Men need women and women need men. We balance each other out. We keep each other in check. But when there is one way authority and one way submission an environment is created that is ripe for abuse of all kinds.
Firstly Mike Winger came from a egalitarian position,or at least very sympathetic. 2nd . You mentioned his cultural experience blinding him. But according to Catholic catechism which is way older than WW2 Patriarchy is God's established way. 😊 As well as Orthodox belief as well. 3. There never was a female Apostle in the bible. . The church Fathers never mentioned 1. Also just as a point of of interest Young men are gravitating toward churches with more traditional views of Authority. Especially the Orthodox church. Which has a 75 percent increase in the USA in last 5 years. Mostly young men . So you guys all sound intelligent and progressive etc. but evangelicals are losing a generation.
@@matthewashman1406 Your first sentence is not true, actually. Winger’s background is complementarian. While he claimed at the start of his video series that he wanted to be convinced by egalitarian theology, if you listen long enough, it becomes evident that he’s pretty committed to the idea of male authority. As Andrew Bartlett indicates here, his engagement with egalitarian scholarship is cursory and unserious.
I watched the first 25min of this and have to turn it off. Several times Bartlett says "why didn't Paul say that. He doesn't say that." Well, YES, he does. Smh. Then he resorts to demagoguery with "that's crazy" and stuff life that. No, it's not. But worse, it makes NO attempt to deal with the SUBSTANCE of Winger's arguments. I turned this on in the hope of seeing a SUBSTANTIVE argument in opposition to Winger's. Instead all I've seen is verification and confirmation that his claims about Egalitarians are correct. They are simply without substance and merit. Time to move on.
Sorry, but you need to watch and listen more closely, and look at what Scripture does and does not say. In the first 25 minutes, Andrew's repeated assertions that Scripture does not say certain things occur almost exclusively between 15:00 and 20:00, and his assertion is that Scripture in general, and Paul in particular, do not tell men to rule, or to be the decision maker, or to exercise authority, w.r.t. women or wives. This is literally true. Skimming the transcript, I don't see any place where Andrew said of Mike's work, "that's crazy." Where he *did* use the word "crazy" was in regard to the ideas Mike mistakenly attributes to various egal. scholars he cites. I'm sorry the video did not meet your lofty standards. Frankly, if you really expected a 43 MINUTE video to deal substantively with Mike's 43 HOURS of videos, you were foolish. If you do want to see substantive responses, Mike Bird placed a link to Terran's site in the above description of this video.
@@Norrin777Radd It's interesting that, in a different reply to another individual, you're perfectly comfortable with reasonable inferences if it will allow you to believe women were apostles. However when it comes to male headship, you require an explicit statement.
@@Norrin777Radd - Oh you're sorry alright. Now get the GIANT Sequoia Tree outta your eye socket, get outta the Flesh, get saved if need be, and then go practice what you preach. Andrew's repeated assertions and now your assertion are literally false. Starting at the 19:13min mark people can read and listen for themselves what Mike says. And I hope folks will see your comment and this and then go listen to that segment because it highlights EXACTLY what I said and what Mike said about how horrible the Egalitarian arguments are!! Here's this scholar giving the best he's got: //despite all the hours he's spent on it he just doesn't perceive the arguments on the other side. He keeps misreading what scholars say// Now isn't that just chocked full of SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE-based refutation! Contrast that with the 40+hrs of coverage Mike did where he painstakingly laid out one logical argument after another. I'm sorry you think common sense and backing up one's claim are lofty standards. The video doesn't come to proving it's headline claim. One could even say doesn't even make an attempt to do so. Thus proving Mike Winger's claims about Egalitarians true again. And I'm sorry that you think 43min isn't enough time to '"deal substantively with Mike's 43 HOURS of videos". Even more sorry that you think it's foolish to think such. No, I wasn't foolish enough to think they would deal with all of his 43hrs but I was foolish enough to think they would deal with SOME of it. That said, thank God I'm not such a fool as to think they could not have deal with at least SOME SUBSTANCE in 40min. “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” (Pro. 17:28) "A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind." (Pro. 18:2) "A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul." (Pro. 18:7)
Please read their substantial points they make on the Terran Williams' website referenced above. They go into minute detail on why Winger is wrong in each and every one of his videos. If you are still unconvinced, then so be it. But in this short video, they cannot possibly give the same focus on substance since Winger's video are dozens of hours long. Saying their claims are without substance without reading their claims is itself lacking in substance.
You need to know two things. #1) Understand Deborah and what a Judge was (I have a short free postable essay.) #2) Understand and know, that Paul wasn't a perfect teacher. (That is another free essay.) Commentary with scripture, with limited opinions.
Mike Winger NEVER engages in debate or with those who push back on his stance - on anything! I don't know for sure, but I suspect Mike is self-educated rather than having a university background and I think there's a lot of insecurity there. He has said that debate is 'not his thing' so, make of that what you will.🤷
Thank you for this amazing interview! Love the group discussion format. With three people there’s already more checks-and-balances than just one person talking. Glad we can find so much common ground as Christians, though sad to see some still holding on to slivers of male spiritual superiority.
I had a brief exchange with Winger a few weeks back in his comment section and community posts, asking him if he had read Terran’s book, to which he wrote back that he “included it” and “responded to it” in his WCL video series. I mentioned Terran’s blog posts countering the video series and didn’t hear anything. Two days later I asked if he would engage with Andrew and Terran over livestream, to which he said: “I'm done with a project that sucked two years out of my life. I don't intend to keep going back and forth. I think my work stands on its own”… “I'm moving on.” … “A thoughtful person is not likely to be swayed by their papers on me, unless they fail to check the actual context” … “The real reason I'm being pressured to help platform them has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with attention.”
I remain hopeful that Winger will at least get to meet and befriend some mutualists. I am glad that all 4 of you love Jesus and all agree that the Bible does not endorse patriarchy. I thought it was worth a shot as a fellow Californian TH-camr to reach out to Winger, but it seems like his reasons for not engaging with you all have solidified in his mind. We have some good friends in the Calvary Chapel circle, so it’s possible he could be a friend of friends, though the people we know are similarly touchy about the issue. It’d be cool to just hang out with him, or do a stream on his channel / my channel (whichever is less attention-getting for me) to discuss our common ground and also pinpoint the things we see differently. But realistically I make videos with toy trains and cars for a living so I’m sure you all could do a way better job engaging with him on the subject matter.
Please add me to the mutualist roster and feel free to reach out on my channel’s About / More section with business email and other socials!
I commend you for trying!
Ngl to me this reads as Winger being stubborn, and unwilling to be shown as incorrect on the topic, very disappointed in his responses, I’d hate to say bad faith but that what comes to mind.
I think the biggest weakness of Mike Winger is that he is doing all this scholarly work by himself. Part of the benefit of the university is discussion and having others fact checking us, pushing back against us, and helping us to understand the other side better. Having the method of locking myself in a closet with a bunch of books is bound to lead to errors of understanding.
Ironically enough, he did an outstanding job when he included qualified experts in the project-just check his contents on the Passion Translation. Shame he didn't do the same thing in this regard.
@@NotLahEnough Where is the error then? If he did the same method here as he did with the Passion Translation, these guys would stull have problems with it.
Thank you to all of you for taking up the defense of your sisters! I'm happy to say that as a (former) complementarian, I was convicted while listening to Mike Winger's production on women that I'd never actually studied the arguments of "the other side" myself. So I paused the video and dove in.. after 6 months, I realized I was on the fence. After 6 more months, I couldn't but abandon complementarianism completely. All of your work, as well as Cynthis Westfall, NT Wright, Nijay Gupta, Craig Keener, etc, etc was SO HELPFUL at stripping away the presuppositions and, as you say, pointing me back to the Scripture and what the author is trying to communicate. Thank you+
That's a silly comment. I am a woman and I stand up for godly sisters in Christ. But I won't acknowledge them as pastors or attend their churches. Rubbish.
“They are the kind who work their way into people’s homes and win the confidence of vulnerable women who are burdened with the guilt of sin and controlled by various desires. (Such women are forever following new teachings, but they are never able to understand the truth.) These teachers oppose the truth just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses. They have depraved minds and a counterfeit faith.”
2 Timothy 3:6-8
I work with organic churches in 7 different countries. I only work with ministries or churches that aren’t affiliated with western denominations and influences. Strictly organic because they are the least supported. Each of these countries Christians are a persecuted minority in and publicly living your life openly for Christ can cost you everything. I can tell you three things that are not issues for them that are issues here in each of these countries . 1. There is no KJV only controversy. 2. None of them are Calvinist. 3. And women are very commonly accepted in ministry. It’s not even challenged .
I love that. What is your organization?
fascinating! why aren't any of them calvinist? can you explain that more?
@@ellenmarie9765because they see the miraculous gifts in operation every single day.
@@ellenmarie9765most likely they are driven by the mission of God to reach all people with gospel.
@@ellenmarie9765 Because calvinism has to be taught... you don't get to it from an organic reading of the Bible. They change the definitions of words so when you see those words in the Bible, you think it's supporting the system. I am a former calvinist who was challenged on it and was surprised, and so thankful now, that I'm now stripping away the presuppositions that were taught to me by my "non-denominational" pastors and teachers.
Thank you for being willing to speak up about this issue!
I have always had a hearty belief in man's ability to reason and embrace the truth when brought face to face with it. But I'm learning that this topic is kryptonite for many Christian men. And it has been devastating to realize that just because I am a woman, some men (and women) simply will not hear what I have to say.
Women will march on as we always have, but men who only see men may need to be given time and patience to discover "a more excellent way."
Our pastor is going through the book of Ruth and he framed the scenario this way: "Because Boaz wasn't like Judah, Ruth didn't have to be like Tamar."
Enough said.
Lord Jesus, your kindgom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven!
Shoutouts to Boaz for being a positive male role model!
Thank you for addressing this on TH-cam. I studied this topic in my MA dissertation just under 10 years ago and I got sent this Mike Winger video from a complementarian who was trying to persuade me of that position. I listened to two videos and just from my reading I immediately knew that Mike had over estimated how well he thought he understood the topic and the scholarship landscape. He kept misrepresenting arguments and scholars to the point where it seemed to me he was questioning their entegrity, which I found distasteful.
I also notice how many times he said he had “figured it out” and had done all the reading so he has the answer to settle the debate. And I knew immediately he was onto a loser. It’s one thing to do some study and come to a conclusion that’s not the problem, the problem was that he positioned himself as “the one who was going to give you the settled argument” on the issue.
To further compound the situation he was questioning scholars who some of them had possibly studied the subject for the same amount of year Mike has been alive and was calling their scholarship “shoddy” after doing a study that in his own words took him a year or two! I can tell you for sure that is no where near enough to declare yourself an authority on the topic. I have more criticisms but that will do.
Lastly (I promise 😂) the most egregious thing of all was that he called for push back and has received it but has not (to my knowledge) even addressed the push back especially from the scholars he calls out, which is erm not a good look at all!!!
“Erm” 🤣🤣🤣
Andrew and Terran's work on Terran's site is excellent. I believe Mike's work on the topic comprises some 40+ hours.
The Silver Surfer speaks!
Andrew and Terran's work is really solid, I agree.
I was an undergraduate Bible student before I was a graduate Bible student, and NOT a very good one. Mike reminds me of my old dorm mates, the enthusiasm of someone whose grasp of the discipline hits a certain ceiling, I will call it undergraduate. When a student is required to read everything on a subject in the primary languages, it's miraculous how the enthusiasm of the undergraduate just melts away, the hubris, the arrogance, the authority just melts away. It's like looking into the universe at the trillions of stars and being reminded that we don't know all there is on a given subject. Great video this. I like Mike, have enjoyed his videos, and I don't think we should ever lose our passion for the Bible, but sometimes the passion needs to be more fair, I have had to learn the hard way that I don't know 1% of the material the way my juvenile self believed I had. The older I get, almost 60, the stupider I get, but the larger my library becomes. It's almost like with every book purchase, I get dumber. I am pretty sure that is called sapiential irony - the more we read, the less vocal we are about knowledge or the "right way" because we learn there is more than one way to skin a cat. I have never skinned a cat, that is pure metaphor. Please youtube do not cancel me. Thank you, God bless, Happy Friday. Go Lions.
Well said! I find myself more and more ignorant as I approach 73, two days away!👏🏻☺️👏🏻
I share in your insight: the older I get, the less I know. I no longer have the enthusiasm nor excitement of my youth. Honestly, I’m replying to your comment here because it discouraging to consider that I must read everything on a subject in its primary language to begin to speak intelligently on a subject.
For what it is worth: I have wrestled with this particular topic for decades now. With my limited understanding, I have concluded that there is no “slam dunk” line of argumentation or “silver bullet” that puts these differing visions to rest. I could be very wrong here, but I decided that it is a matter of personal conviction.
I am simply tired of the back and forth, but the lack of a compelling resolution keeps me looking into the differing understandings on the matter. Lord, have mercy!
@@Cretoman
It's not hard. Those that knew the scriptures (Old Testament)
knew that the Judges were the primary/senior pastors/shepherds
at that time period. God ruled Israel through the Judges. A Judge
could judge anything, including homicide cases. Therefore a Judge
could execute a man for his sin. The ultimate in spiritual authority.
A Judge was cleared to teach from the Law, therefore scripture.
This is what the people of the first century had. That is, the Old
Testament scriptures. Then...Paul came around, and we have
20 centuries of debate and confusion.
Judges 4 and 5 (Deborah), else my free informal
postable essay on her. Read time: 10 minutes
100%. I was atheist for years and a lot of atheist scholars got regular fodder off of Mike’s channel. He speaks with a tone of authority and just enough research to convince crowds of people who haven’t gone through any in-depth research on the Bible. It isn’t all bad either as he does a lot of good getting people interested in all kinds of biblical topics and his level of discourse is easily engaged by a lay audience. Biblical scholars of all stripes regularly refute a great many of his claims showing either a lack of expertise in the topics he is speaking on or logical and methodological errors he makes regularly that land him at his conclusions. He’s simply engaging more topics than he’s qualified to be engaging with the certitude he exudes. I think a big reason so many people end up engaging his claims is that he tends to be so sure of them rather than admitting a higher degree of uncertainty and giving a more accurate account of the actual current situation of scholarship ( if he’s even aware of it). This just invites higher criticisms. Most of them are constructive too, but I doubt he has the time or desire to actually engage them. Can’t do everything
@@Szpak-123 In the OT, priests are a closer representation of NT ministers then judges. They were appointed representatives before God, judges were not. Judges were leaders sent by God to free Israelites (judges 2:16).
Thanks for hosting this conversation, Mike.
Mike Winger gives you his opinion by how he interprets the Bible. I have seen him admit he was wrong at times and make corrections, but he has said many times dont take my word for it read the bible and pray about it and let the Holy Spirit teach you. He has great knowledge of the bible and I have learned a lot from him and I feel he does it all in love. We are never going to agree on everything but we can agree to disagree respectfully.
thank you.
I'm so glad that you are covering this topic, Michael! Mike Winger was a huge influence on my faith, and when I went through his series it pointed me squarely opposed to egalitarian thought. It wasn't until a year or so later that my mind was changed on the subject through careful study of scholarship and scripture. When I rewatched his videos then, I found them very unhelpful, uncharitable, and misrepresentative of the view of those who affirm women in ministry.
I'm a woman who is appalled at the flagrant disregard of Scripture. The Bible is very clear that both in the home and in the church body, God has assigned the role of leadership to men. This isn't demeaning to women, it is simply our role to partner with men in this God mandated authority. I'm so tired of the false teaching and deception on this topic, and I see reward lost in heaven for rebellion. It's very sad.
@ I’m sorry, but it isn’t flagrant disregard of scripture to take context into account and understand them in a different way. I would disagree that the Bible is clear about “the leadership role being assigned to men”. “The Bible is very clear” that Deborah took the leadership role over all of Israel, even though she had a husband who presumably could have done so.
I don’t think it’s helpful to characterize an egalitarian view as false teaching and deception. If you disagree, I would love to hear the particular reasons why you disagree, but it’s pretty uncharitable to describe it as false teaching simply because you disagree. I believe firmly in the Bible, I just also want to understand what it’s saying in its context so I know how to apply it outside of its context.
@@jaredmatthews1561… It is not a flagrant disregard of Scripture.
I would ask the sister who made this statement: What do you do with the scriptures where Paul calls
for slaves to submit to and serve masters? Those are very clear also. Paul no where explicitly calls for the abolition of slavery or for masters to set their slaves free- and neither does Jesus.
So was Harriet Tubman wrong for helping slaves escape? There is no Scripture approving that. Was Fredrick Douglas wrong for speaking against slavery when neither Paul, Peter, James or any biblical writer does not explicitly do so?
What do we do with the plain reading of the text that calls for slaves to serve their masters- was President Lincoln wrong to set slaves free?
Were all of these people who fought for the freedom of my ancestors flagrantly disregarding the text of Scripture?
If not… how do we explain and justify the freeing of slaves in the West- which was spearheaded by Christians?
@@jaredmatthews1561It's only a flagrant disregard of YOUR view of the whole of scripture and small segments of it.
@@Leadeshipcoach great point. It’s interesting how applying the same logic elsewhere can lead to disastrous exegetical results.
29:25 That's a Tu quoque fallacy. Mike's personal application doesn't effect the validity of his argument pertaining to Women's ordination. Also the fact that the precise meaning of αὐθεντέω is unclear doesn't lend credence to either view, the fact that διδάσκω is is being used and the immediately proceeding context of qualifications for overseers ( "Being the HUSBAND of one wife" ). I don't think you're addressing the context either.
They have two articles addressing the supposed elder/overseer/shepherd passages from the dubiously so-called "Pastoral Epistles." Briefly, they favor the CEB and CEV translations. Please see their articles at Terran's site for details.
@@Norrin777Radd I'll take a look, thanks
“That’s a Tu quoque fallacy”. BUT it isn’t. It’s a logical inconsistency. Mike Winger’s interpretation of 1 Tim 2:13 as an appeal to a supposed creation principle of men having authority over women is logically inconsistent with his recognition that Scripture shows that women may have authority over men in society. For discussion of the context, please see our full articles on 1 Timothy 2 and 3, which you can find via the link which Mike Bird has put just under the time stamps under the video.
Mike Davis at KICTV: Kieeping it in Context on youtube does and excellent job of refuting Winger's videos. He has read the same books as Winger but comes to a completely different conclusion. He demonstrates how Mike Winger misrepresents egalitarian scholars in his videos by actually reading lengthy quotes from the books Winger claims to have read.
Davis' videos are as long as Winger's and it takes some time to get through them, but I personally have benefitted from his teaching style of repetition, repetition, repetition. He is diligent in taking his time in setting up the background, the context of the disputed passages, but if you hang in there until the end, you will have an "aha" moment that will stick.
I've loved Mike Davis's stuff!!
I'll look him up.
I'm Swedish, grown up in one of the most equal and feministic societies in the world, currently living in Norway because of Bible School. I guess I could be described as a Charismatic Christian, but I prefer to just call myself a follower of Christ, amongst siblings all over the world, belonging to the one church "The Body of Christ", including everyone who has a personal relationship with Jesus as his/her Lord and Saviour and who has been borned again.
I'm sorry to say this, but I have difficulty taking this video seriously. You say: "If he's right that God wants husbands to exercise authority over their wives, or to lead them, why is there nowhere in Scripture which says that a man aught to do that?" My question is: WHAT BIBLE ARE YOU READING??? I can recall only from my memory many places where it talks about women "submitting" to their husbands. If that in it self, not considering all the examples of men leading their wives, doesn't mean that the husband should be the main leader of the family, why then is it only written to the wives that they should submit to their husband, and never the other way around?? If someone is submitting, then someone must be that person's leader/head - as Christ is the leader/head of the Church.
"Submit yourselves to one another because of your reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"
/Ephesians 5:22-25
Some overfocus on the first verse in this passage and wants it to mean that both the man and his wife should submit to eachother, but it's not actually what it says there. It's a direction to all believers to submit to one another. So sure that includes married people, but also everyone else. Focus is not only on the internal relationship between man and woman. There can be men submitting to men, and women to women aswell, but IN MARRIAGE the Bible is very clear that it is the wife that should submit to her husband. Words like authority and head, with paralells to Christ's position in relation to the church, is often used when talking about marriage, and when the Bible passage abouve speaks to the man, he is not commanded to submit, but to LOVE the wife. If God wanted the men to submit to the wives in a similar way as the women are called to submit to their husbands, I don't understand why He never instructs them to (clearly, as He does so many times to women). I don't understand how this is not crystal clear to all Bible believing Christians.
If someone thinks it was only for the time of the Bible, then why does Paul draw parallels and argues with references back to Adam and Eve and the fall of man. Because God's instruction than men shall "rule over the woman" comes already from early Genesis, just after the fall when they both hade eaten of the forbidden fruit - the woman tempted by the snake and the man tempted by his wife, we can understand that this command, with loads of confirmation through out both the Old and the New Testament, is not a contextual thing, but a timeless order from God, ATLEAST until sin is once and for all taken away. But that is the time when Jesus says:
"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." /Matthew 22:27-30
...so I'm not sure how relevant this whole topic is at that time.
God bless you. Let's all respect God's orders in creation and His good directions and commands given to us through His Word. I pray that you stay "unstained from the world” (James 1:27), but "alive in Christ" (Ephesians 2:5)
you wrote:
There can be men submitting to men, and women to women aswell, but IN MARRIAGE the Bible is very clear that it is the wife that should submit to her husband.
I don't believe this, and have a long post explaining my thoughts.
It includes scripture.
Massachusetts, USA
Thanks for your thoughts. Have you read our engagement with Mike Winger on the Greek word kephale and on Ephesians 5? You seem like you have the appetite.
Seconding everything you said. Couldn’t have worded it better
been trying to find my way on this topic and found this to be such a helpful video. thanks so much!!
Thank you again to more commenters. Here is a second batch of my responses, collected together:
@markwood3583 “on Junia … you have not represented Mikes view accurately.” BUT I have checked the transcript and at 13:01 Terran accurately stated Mike’s fall-back position that, if Junia was an apostle, she was not an authoritative apostle. The problem with Mike’s view is that his version of what you call “the middle category” of apostles does not fit the NT. On reading Acts and the NT letters, it is hard to see how pioneering apostles (like Barnabas and Silas and Junia) did not have authority over the churches which they helped to establish. Who has authority to appoint the first elders? For a fuller answer, please see our article responding to Mike’s video on Woman Apostles.
@markwood3583 “Could we have the 12, then the barnabases, then the junias then the epaphridituses?” “surely the "middle" has to be more varied then [than] authoritative apostle like Barnabas and Silas.” But Mark, it appears you are inventing a new category of ‘apostle’ that is not seen in the post-Pentecost mission or churches, of whom Junia would be the sole example. Hope you enjoy reading the book. Critique is always welcome. We learn in community.
@markwood3583 “if the 72, presumably men and women, are called apostles by origen, and all they did was a short term mission trip and preach then Junia is not the sole example of the kind of apostle that was not necessarily a Barnabas type.” BUT this discussion turns on what Paul meant, not on what Origen meant nearly 200 years later. The term ‘apostle’ is used about 80 times in the NT. In those 80, there is not even one example of the additional meaning which you are suggesting, of which Andronicus and Junia would be the sole examples.
@markwood3583 “I would be interested to know how many of the 80 refer to the 12, the money carriers and then most importantly the category we are discussing. Including the other categories inflates your number to help your argument.” BUT (1) The numerical total makes no material difference to my argument, which is that there are no occurrences in the NT of the additional meaning for ‘apostle’ which you have suggested. (2) There are about 27 uses of the term ‘apostle’ in the Gospels and Acts 1:1 to 8:18 as referring to one or more of the Twelve. After that point, the references in Acts are a mix of primary apostles and pioneering apostles. In Paul’s letters, there’s a similar mix, plus the two uses to mean a courier sent by a church. Fuller explanation, with Bible references, is found in our article on Terran’s website, responding to Mike Winger’s Part 5 video ‘Were Women Apostles in the New Testament?’ You can readily find every use of the term ‘apostle’ by a search on stepbible.org
@PC-vg8vn “Aren’t these [signs, wonders and miracles] the evidence of an apostle?” Yes, they are one piece of evidence (2 Cor 12.12), though humble love and likeness to Jesus are essential (Matt 7.15-23; 11.29; 2 Cor 10.1; 11.7, 12-13; 1 Thess 2.6-9). According to the traditions held in the East, Andronicus and Junia “converted many to Christ, healed people and drove out demons, founded churches …” More info in our article on Terran’s website, responding to Mike Winger’s Part 5 video ‘Were Women Apostles in the New Testament?’ (There is no tradition that they were couriers, nor is that meaning likely in the context of Rom 16.7.)
@cirdan4170 “I did not expect such blatant straw manning, partially putting words in wingers mouth” BUT what strawmanning did I or Terran do? You do not provide any example. We were careful to represent him accurately in our fourteen articles which respond to his videos and we always invited correction. When a few people wrote in with queries, we promptly made any needed corrections. If any more are needed, we will be happy to make them.
@CleansingWater “I'd mainly be curious to hear your dealing with 1 Peter 3” In my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video. In that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’.
@Shane_The_Confessor “1 Peter 3: 1-7 There's your command in language that even you cannot miss.” BUT in my Bible, in those verses, there is no command to husbands to exercise authority over their wives. Is there something in your version that isn’t in mine and isn’t in the Greek text?
@heatherboley8148 “after watching this video, I still agree with Mike Winger.” The purpose of the video was not to persuade anyone to change their mind. To do that, it would have had to be as long as Mike’s videos (43 hours). The purpose was to indicate that there are issues with the reliability of Mike’s work and to introduce our detailed articles. We invite you to read them and pray that you will be blessed in doing so.
@matthewford4050 In your reply to Norrin Radd you quote the AV of Eph 5:24 which starts with “Therefore …” This highlights the problem. That translation 100% fits a patriarchal interpretation. But in the Greek, v24 starts with “alla”, which means “but”. That word does not introduce something that follows logically (head means authority, THEREFORE Paul says submit). It introduces a strong contrast (head does not mean authority here BUT Paul says submit). For fuller explanation, please see our detailed response article to Mike Winger’s Part 9 video.
@matthewford4050 “Why do you ignore what Peter instructed?” BUT (1) Peter does not instruct men to rule their wives, exercise authority over them or lead them. Those are man-made commands which are not found anywhere in Scripture. (2) We don’t ignore what Peter instructed. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video; within that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’. And in my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter.
@BornAgainBerean481 “This is unbelievable, its like they want Paul to talk to us like we are so stupid that don't know what authority means. Thats their whole basis. "It does [not?] expressly say that".” In view of your handle (“Berean”), do you really mean that it doesn’t matter what the inspired words of Scripture actually say? Mike Winger teaches that a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife. But there is no such command in Scripture. Do you agree with adding man-made commands to Scripture? Jesus had some strong words about that (Mark 7).
@jasondoman6135 “I’m confused how you come to the conclusion that Ephesians gives the same council [counsel] to both husbands and wives” BUT that is not my conclusion and I haven’t said that. Some of the counsel that Paul gives is the same and some of it is different.
@jasondoman6135 “Is counseling wives to subject themselves to their husbands not also counseling husbands to lead?” No, it is not (an instruction to A to do X is not an instruction to B to do Y). And all the more in view of Eph 5.20-22. The best Greek texts read “… always giving thanks to God the Father for all things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, submitting to one another in reverence for Christ, wives to their husbands …” Wives’ submission is an example of the submission to one another that is expected of all believers.
@jasondoman6135 “Winger doesn’t just assume Paul magically changes who he’s talking about in 1 Timothy 2”. BUT in substance he does. He doesn’t pay attention to the context or follow through Paul’s train of thought. For a short explanation, please follow the link that Mike Bird has given to our article ‘Where Mike Winger Went Wrong On Women’ and go down to our heading ‘#12, In 1 Timothy 2 Paul deals with false teaching.’ For a fuller explanation, please follow the links to our full article ‘The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2’.
@jamessago9995 “In 1 Tim 2:9, Paul talks about how women are to dress and adorn their hair. Did priestess of Artemis ware braided hair, pearls, and gold jewelry as a form of piety (and is Paul pushing against this?) Or do you think Paul is wanting wealthier Christian women to not flaunt their wealth? Or is there another option?” Good questions, thank you. In first-century conditions, the mention of pearls tell us that the women Paul had in mind were super-rich. Super-rich women in Ephesus would probably have been involved in the cult of Artemis but we cannot say whether they had been priestesses before they were converted to Christ. For fuller discussion, see our article “Part 12 (The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2)”. If you go to the link posted under the video, you’ll see it in the bulleted list of articles. Within that article, the section most relevant to your questions is under the heading ‘Objection 6 - Not a particular kind of woman?’
Like the Bible, some of Mikes work is more inspired while other parts are less inspired. Mike is a great man of God with an honest desire to know the truth. Having critical discussions like this on the meaning of scriptures so individuals can decide for themselves how to interpret them is a great service.
I've now bought Terran's book. I like this quote "Complementarians have often argued that mutualists compromise Scripture. What they don’t realize or acknowledge is that, though they rightly uphold the divine authority of Scripture, they merge their interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. God’s word is true, but we need the humility to admit our interpretations of it may not always be correct. God’s word is indeed infallible. We, however, are not."
Be careful of Paul's teachings, on a number of subjects. Jesus was
aware of the false teaching during His time of men referring to
themselves as spiritual 'fathers' and addressed it. Paul either didn't
know about it or disregarded it.
And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
-excerpt Matthew 23
-words of Jesus
For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father...
-excerpt 1 Corinthians 4
-words of Paul
Except that quote is neither profound nor true.
@@lectorintellegat
Paul was very serious about his position as spiritual 'father'.
A position that was totally invalid according to Jesus.
I have a long post explaining this. This was Paul's most
serious false teaching. Postable here.
@@lectorintellegat Do read Andrew Bartlett's book. I was a complementarian as I thought there was only one way to understand the Bible's teaching on leadership. In my opinion it's the most balanced book on the matter. Possibly because of his background in advocacy and his Biblical language training.
Terran's book carries the same weight as Mike's videos. Neither are trained to take these arguments on, I just suspect Terran's better at it because he draws on the work of those more capable than he is whereas Mike attempts to do it all on his own.
So when Paul says the husband is the “head” of his wife, what does that mean then? Does not the term “head” imply leadership, authority, and preeminence??
Take a gander at Judges 11:11, Ephesians 1:22. Do you know what the term “husband” actually means? Why did Sarah call her husband “lord”? Why is it that wives specifically are told to submit themselves to their husbands, but husbands specifically aren’t told to submit to their wives? What does it mean for Christian to be the head of the church? In what ways would that be different from husbands being the head of their wives? Is not the church the bride (wife) of Christ? Does Jesus not lead and exercise authority over his bride (the church)?
Jesus LOVES His bride and serves her. As Paul calls husbands to do. Nowhere in this passage does Paul tell men to "lead" or "take charge" of their wives. That was the point Bartlett made in this video.
And Paul does not tell wives to obey their husbands (as he tells slaves to obey their masters only a few verses later), he tells them to submit to their husbands--in the same breath that he calls members of the church (men and women) to submit to one another in v. 21 for the sake of Christ and the peace, unity and order of the Ephesian church.
"Preeminence" and even "leadership" do not directly equate to "authority."
If a husband initiates and goes above and beyond in self-sacrificially serving, he is "leading" in those ways but not exercising "authority."
The term "husband" in Greek is just "man." Translators decide based on context how to render it. Sometimes, 1 Tim. 2 for example, there is disagreement on that.
What it means for Christ to be "head" of the Church depends on context. In the context of Eph. 5, "ruler" or "authority" is not the most likely meaning.
All believers, including husbands and wives, are told to submit to each other in Eph. 5>21. V. 22 has no verb in the Greek, but rather uses the verb from v. 21, so the submission there by wives is just an example of the mutual submission. V. 24 reiterates it.
@@alyssa_trulytree Paul doesn't have to tell husbands to "lead" their wives, because it is already implied by stating that the husband is the "head" of the wife. This is my first point in my OP....
Based on your response, it seems that the words "lead" and "take charge" are triggering you or are being associated with a negative connotation. Is not Jesus Christ "leading you"? Do you have a problem with Jesus "taking charge" over your life? My point here is that servant leadership comes with authority. This doesn't mean a loveless and domineering type of leadership. It's clear in the text, Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord in Ephesians 5:22-24, yet it seems like you are trying to omit this by quoting verse 21, without acknowledging the fact that verses 22-33 explain what Paul means in verse 21.
Servant-Leadership comes with authority. A husband serves his wife by loving her in a way that translates to protecting her and providing for her. And wives serve their husbands by submitting to their husbands, and respecting them as they would the Lord Jesus. This means that she willingly obeys her husband rather than bickering and arguing with him. 1 Peter 3:1-6 calls to this - which is why in my OP i asked "Why did Sarah call her husband lord?" These questions should have made you take another look at the word of God and reconsider your position as it makes no sense.
The Husband is the head of the wife, meaning he has authority over his wife. Christ is the head of the church, meaning he has authority over the church - yet the authority of the husband shouldn't be abused to domineer over his wife, just as Jesus didn't abuse his authority to domineer over the church. Authority should be exercised in love, and we see that in the example of Jesus himself.
A husband must gently lead, guide, instruct, and correct his wife, and his wife must humbly submit, follow, obey, and trust her husband. That's the tango. That's what each person in the marriage should be striving to achieve.
The perfect analogies here are Jesus being the Shepherd and the church being his sheep. Jesus loves his sheep, and will go to the pit to save his sheep out of it, yet as a shepherd he also gently guides his sheep and takes care of them. However, his sheep must hear his voice. Sheep naturally follow and trust the voice of their shepherd.
If a sheep doesn't follow and trust the voice of their shepherd, that is a lost sheep who is in danger as there are wolves ravening.
If a woman doesn't want to submit to her husband, she is not living with the right attitude Christian wives are instructed to have toward their husband.
@@Norrin777Radd Leadership is always associated with authority as leadership inherently involves the exercise of authority. When someone is called a "leader," it implies they have the capacity or permission to make decisions, provide direction, and hold others accountable. A leader without authority is an ineffective person, and really an oxymoron.
Also, the term "husband" in Greek is "anēr", and it does not JUST mean "man", it can also mean "husband", you just have to look at the context in which it's used. If you look at a Greek Lexicon, it shows that this Greek term in Ephesians 5:22 is being used to refer to "husband", hence why the word is translated as "husband" in your bible...
You say that the term "head" doesn't mean "ruler" or "authority" in Ephesians 5, ok. Prove it then. What else does it mean?? Have you looked into the actual meaning of the word? It literally shows that the Greek term kephalē either literally means head like the body part, or is metaphorically used to mean master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife, when it is used to refer to persons. Authority is clearly implied here.
And try not to let the word "authority" trigger you into assuming that I'm talking about an unloving, domineering, forceful kind of authority. That's obviously a sinful and abusive way to exercise authority, and doesn't ever end well... We know that's clearly not advised in scripture. However, the scriptures are clear that the husband is the head (authority) of his wife, and must love her by sacrificially providing and protecting her, and gently leading her and instructing her. It seems that those who hold to the egalitarian view are either being misled or blatantly ignoring what the text actually says.
Both Paul and Peter clearly instruct wives to submit to and reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24, 33). To have a meek and quiet spirit (1 Peter 3:4). To go to their husbands if they have questions about a sermon in Church (1 Corinthians 14:35), to cover their heads when praying or prophesying in church/public as a sign of being under their husband's authority (1 Corinthians 11:10), to be obedient to their own husbands (Titus 2:5), and subject unto their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:24). We see this is obviously a unique role for wives.
They instruct husbands to sacrificially love their wives (Ephesians 5:25), to honor/respect, and be considerate of their wives (1 Peter 3:7), to not be harsh in their leadership (Colossians 3:19), and to serve and care for their wives as they care for themselves (Ephesians 5:28-29), as the head (authority) of their wives (1 Corinthians 11:3, 10), but no where does it say for them to submit to their wives in the same way wives are instructed to submit to their husbands.
This then means that the egalitarian view is WRONG. There are distinct roles the husband and wife play. Both serving each other in mutual eagerness to love each other, by playing their distinctive roles in marriage.
Thanks. Will buy Terran Williams' book. To date Andrew Bartlett's is my top recommendation for a detailed study on this matter and Mike Bird's Bourgeois Babes, Bossy Wives and Bobby Haircuts has been my top recommendation for a quick introduction for someone looking for an egalitarian explanation.
Other than wishing there was a woman a part of this conversation this was great. The thing that stood out to me with Mike Winger’s videos was not even his arguments but his presentation and overall attitude toward others, mainly scholars or otherwise who disagreed with him. Advertising yourself as if you have unlocked the answers and had some spiritual revelation sounds more cultish than well researched. I think there is some decent scholarship out there supporting complementarianism but his was not it. He completely ignores huge works of scholarship and misconstrues them for his own argument’s benefit. I know this isn’t a valid argument in terms of biblical scholarship but I also can’t help but think about how convenient it is for men to be complementarian. I really hope Mike engages at some point, if not just for a wonderful discussion. Egalitarian all the way.
Saying that Paul was referring to authority whenever he used Kephale (head) is just not as clear-cut as some propose. Please read the writings of Dr. Philip Payne (who started out believing firmly in male authority/female submission and became a believer in mutual authority/mutual submission after years of research) and Dr. Catherine Clark Kroeger's explanations of how the word kephale (head) might have been understood by Paul's readers. I have posted both below.
The Making of Biblical Womanhood by Beth Allison Barr is a great read.
very interesting response.
Mike Winger NEVER engages in debate or with those who push back on his stance - on anything! I don't know for sure, but I suspect Mike is self-educated rather than having a university background and I think there's a lot of insecurity there. He has said that debate is 'not his thing' so, make of that what you will.🤷
Reminds me of what the religious leaders thought of the apostles of Christ…..they were unlearned men but those guys well they were uneducated know nothings. This should give many pause. C H Spurgeon…….right, he was an unlearned man as well. Humble pie was being served up in those days. God has used men who many looked down on r viewed as no nothings ……and the power of God was on full display. As it should be 😋
That's just false, like you can look this up lol
Thanks for helping us understand different approaches. Do you happen to have a similar discussion about Tim Keller’s position?
Sheila Wray Gregoire makes a distinction in her book between pre-2016 and post-2016 work from the Kellers regarding marriage. I know there was a debate about the "Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father" heresy that was widely debunked online that year, but not sure if that was the distinction for Sheila. Terran's article "Subordinating Jesus and Women" mentions some of the Kellers' viewpoints as well
Terran's accent gives me the impression that he is a South African. If so, it is cool finding a fellow South African here. :)
Yes, I believe he is.
@@LourensBrink he is. We were on the same church that he was at in Cape Town before we moved.
Regarding scriptural passages where Paul commented on marital roles, what is almost never explored and seemingly unknown to Complmentarians, is that under Roman law, an adult married Roman woman remained under the authority of her father. She was under his authority not her husband's. Likewise a husband remained under the authority of his own father and would not become a true head of any household or family unit until his own father died.
The legal category of marriage where a father handed over his daughter to a husband existed in the early Roman Republic, but was no longer practiced by the late Republic. It had been rejected.
Parents and in-laws (including mothers) could force a divorce of adult children against their will.
Such was the power of a paterfamilia.
It is not uncommon for marriages today to run into trouble because of meddlesome in laws, but nothing like it could happen under Roman law.
These passages make a lot of sense in this context with the issue being about asserting leaving and cleaving rather than tempering a battle of the sexes between a couple with the man having authority.
There were other categories of marriage such as masters recognizing slave couples, who were not allowed to legally marry, but biblically could. In this case the challenge would be that of a masters attempt to control a marriage as an interference with the biblical leave and cleave model/mandate.
As a side note, NT reference to women being saved by childbearing likely refers to the institution of 'jus trium libororum' instituted originally by Augustus and continuing onward.
Roman women bearing three children and freedwoman bearing four children were emancipated from male guardianship for the most part, whether fathers or husbands.
Part 7
PAUL'S SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE IS WEAK
Paul states that it is good for a man to be alone, in 1 Corinthians 7.
...that it is good for them...
Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each has his own gift from God, one in this way, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
God states that it is not good for a man to be alone in Genesis 2.
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
He who finds a wife finds a good thing
And obtains favor from the Lord.
-excerpt Proverbs 18 (above)
House and wealth are an inheritance from fathers,
But a prudent wife is from the Lord.
-excerpt Proverbs 19 (above)
We are not to make marriage decisions on our own. With our wisdom.
We are to marry or not, according to God's will.
And her husband Joseph, since he was a righteous man and did not want to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had thought this over, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,...
-excerpts Matthew 1
Even though Paul states that unmarried women should remain unmarried
women, he also states that women, presumably married women, would be saved
by having children.
(Though in fairness he might have been referring to
Jus trium liberorum - The jus trium liberorum, meaning
"the right of three children" in Latin. It was a Roman law
that gave women some advantages. Too much to write
about here though.
Also, one could argue that Paul might be stating that women
would be assisted and helped when giving birth, by God. And
not by the pagan god Artemis. This goddess supposedly would
help in the birthing process.)
The text below is unclear on this matter however regarding the
possible application of Jus trium liberorum or Artemis. Instead
Eve is mentioned as a sinner and we're left with only that.
...and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
-excerpt 1 Timothy 2 YLT
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. But women will be preserved through childbirth-if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation.
-NASB
I very much hope that Mike Winger engages with someone on this topic. I think he's afraid that he would be proven wrong, as he really don't perform well in debates.
Debates can become rather adversarial. We would just like some friendly engagement in a friendly conversation.
Thank you. You are much more charitable towards MW than I would have managed to be. I find MW somewhat judgemental and holier-than-thou. And he was horrible to my pastor.
How?
The passage on a woman not teaching a man (versus men plural) probably is better understood as one-on-one mentoring. This is not about teaching in a group setting or a co-ed setting including men.
People forget that the reason why wives are commanded to submit to their husbands and there are no commands for husbands to submit to their wives, is purely coincidental and has nothing to do with Jewish or Roman understandings of the family where the Father has principal authority. Contrary to modern American evangelicalism, the Ancient Near East was actually egalitarian. It should be clear that Junia being an Apostle, also entails that the was one who had rule over her household even in the case she had a husband, because neither the Jewish nor Roman model of the family considered the male head to be the principal agent in which that responsibility lies. Hence, claim that death came through Adam rather than Eve, is to be taken as an illustration rather than implying a metaphysical order of relation. It should also be clear that a rise of domestic violence of women against men, is not something more proximate to egalitarianism and therefore is not parallel to any concern of domestic violence of men against women being more proximate to complimentarianism. It should be obvious that just because the husband loving his wife as Christ does the Church in a self-sacrificial manner is essential to the definition of complimentarianism, that this doesn't mean this is contrary in any sense to men abusing their wives.
Interesting. Do you have any sources for your claim that the Ancient Near East was egalitarian? I would really like to learn more about that.
@@azkulfrost from the fact, according to Bird, that complimentarianism is only a recent development that arose after WW2 affluence in Western society. Seeing that the only alternative to complimentarianism is egalitarianism, it follows that male-headship is a new phenomenon, not present in human society other than in modern, western Christianity, nor in the dimorphic gender traits of primates. If ofcourse a troupe of baboons was led by a male, that could be due to the influence of inter-species complimentarian fear-mongering against the rise of radical feminism in baboon-culture, or perhaps a result of the curse due to the Fall. In the recapitulation of nature under thr headship of Christ, assuredly baboon-culture will be restored and elevated to egalitarian glory.
@@azkulfrost Same here.
I read Andrew's book some time ago and it is excellent. In this video you refer to 3 types of apostles. The problem I have with that is that Paul, for example, used the same word so how can you really know he viewed different apostles differently? When he defended himself to the Corinthians (clearly some had been casting doubt on whether Paul was a 'true' apostle) Paul said that he showed himself to be a genuine apostle because of the 'signs, wonders and miracles' he did when with them. Aren't these the evidences of an apostle?
Regardless of the 'apostles matter' you mention, I regard Paul
as almost a false teacher, due to him having at least two
serious false teachings.
1) His firm belief that he was a spiritual 'father'.
2) His belief that husbands were over their wives.
Paul comes up short in other teachings as well. The above
two, and more, are addressed by me in an informal free
postable essay.
@@Szpak-123 Among the various problems with that view are the facts that Luke regarded Paul as an apostle, and the author of 2 Pet. regarded his writings as equal to the other Scriptures. So if Paul is untrustworthy, so are Luke and Peter.
“Aren’t these [signs, wonders and miracles] the evidence of an apostle?” Yes, they are one piece of evidence (2 Cor 12.12), though humble love and likeness to Jesus are essential (Matt 7.15-23; 11.29; 2 Cor 10.1; 11.7, 12-13; 1 Thess 2.6-9). According to the traditions held in the East, Andronicus and Junia “converted many to Christ, healed people and drove out demons, founded churches …” More info in our article on Terran’s website, responding to Mike Winger’s Part 5 video ‘Were Women Apostles in the New Testament?’ (There is no tradition that they were couriers, nor is that meaning likely in the context of Rom 16.7.)
@@Szpak-123 To Szpak-123: You have made many comments under our video. I thank you for drawing attention earlier to 1 Chronicles 17.6. But you keep saying Paul was a false teacher on two points. Our video was intended for people who, like us, accept the authority of Scripture. May I briefly indicate our position on the points you have raised? (1) As we read the New Testament, the idea that Paul taught husbands to be “over their wives” is a misunderstanding of what he wrote. We have explained this at length in our articles on Terran’s website. (2) You seem to be misreading 1 Cor 4:15 as contrary to Matt 23.9. The point Jesus is making is clear from 23.5-12. Paul’s use of ‘father’ as a figure of speech in 1 Cor 4.15 is unobjectionable; he is not telling the Corinthians to call him ‘father’ or ‘Rabbi’.
@@AndrewBartlett-k7x
you wrote:
“Aren’t these [signs, wonders and miracles] the evidence of an apostle?” Yes, they are one piece of evidence...
Then was Stephen an apostle?
So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task...
And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.
-excerpts Acts 6
The prophets of the Old Testament performed miracles
by God's power. The same is coming in the future.
...and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire...because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth.
-excerpts Revelation 11
Paul taught a hierarchical, and therefore false view, of Christianity.
He repeatedly stated he was in the highest tier. The apostle tier.
The trouble, in my opinion, is that 'apostle' is regarded
as almost a god-like title. Also, there is no definition that
is specific, except 'one who is sent'. So someone sent
out to various cities and countries to preach the gospel message.
It seems most people read into the title of 'apostle' much
more than what was originally intended. Anyway, those are
my thoughts.
I must say I find it really strange how modern scholarship agonizes over every individual Greek phrase, assuming that the use of a unique word communicates profound ideas that obviously authenticate their perspective. I get it people have to write PHDs and have scholarly debates, but this overemphasis on grammar and isolating individual words is bizarre. We have partial knowledge of the ancient world, just because the documents that survive dont use a phrase or word all that often doesnt mean it wasnt used all that often in the rest of ancient society. It's probably better to read peoples words in context of the other words and see how those words were intrepreted by the early church to get clarity on how Paul was initially understood.
“better to read peoples words in context of the other words”. YES, reading in context is important. That is what we have done in our articles. BUT it is disappointing that not-reading-in-context is one of the most frequent shortcomings in Mike Winger’s video series on women in ministry. We have documented this in our articles.
What about this verse that many people ignore
1 Peter 3:5-6 KJV - For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
As noted above, they address it in their responses to Winger at Terran's web site.
1. KJV is not the best translation out there
2. You are reading this through your own lens rather than the contextual lens
@@massiefamily7229
I noticed that the only argument is to state it was regional or cultural (which is typical) or to attack me.
The consistent witness from the church writings for the first 300 years showed that women covered their heads according to 1 cor 11, and you most likely believe this is cultural as well. The church from Asia to North Africa, to Europe held to this same teaching.
The most common way of disregarding scripture is to simply say that was their culture.
Gents,
I am dissapointed with your discussion on Junia as you have not represented Mikes view accurately. This is so important. You can disagree with his view but until you can demonstrate that you understand it by presenting it accurately your rebuttal of said view loses all strength. Which is sad because i was hoping for dialogue so that you could help me understand the egalitarian view better.
I will summarise mikes view as i understand it. Junia was probably a woman and she may well have been an apostle. Not one of the 12 and not simply a money carrier. She may have been a missionary (sent one) and she may have been involved in starting and maybe even leading churches in the early stages before they became established.
Now i am also a missionary. I was sent out by my church to plant churches in the middle east. I am also complementarian. When we were involved with the first church that we knew of in this country, the first believers were women. Therefore the first leaders were women. This is not ant complinentarian. This is starting church from nothing. Over some time men were saved and when the transition period was over men were leading the church as elders. Wingers complemntarian view on Junia fits perfectly with her being a missionary who helped start churches but does nothing to overturn pauls instructions on elders.
I am very disappointed as you have added nothing to the discussion because all you said was she is in the middle category of apostle. Winger said that too.
All this goes back to about 1100 B.C. I suggest my
free informal postable essay on Deborah if you want
to understand the Egalitarian view better.
Thanks for your thoughts? Have you read our engagement with Mike's teaching on Junia? I'd be interested to know if you think we misrepresent him? A short on-the-spot interview is hardly the place to say anything thoroughly.
@@terranwilliams6941 Appreciate your response. I am working my way through your book and Mike's videos simultaneously. I have also been reading your response to his videos. I am almost finished your book. A third of the way through Mike's videos and a third if the way through your response. I jumped ahead to read your response on Junia and I can see a fair representation there and acknowledge that time may have contributed to a poor portrayal of his position in this video. I still have two concerns. First and probably less important, I am more disturbed by the portrayal in this video than I was before I read the article. Maybe I am being unkind due to time constraints but I find this videos summary of Junia unacceptable especially after reading your article. Here's why I think I am disturbed. When I watched the video, I assumed you misunderstood winger. That's a small thing. It happens to all of us. After reading your article i see you didn't misunderstand but may have deliberately presented a watered down version which I hope I am wrong about and perhaps your time constraints answer is sufficient but it is still suspicious to me. Are we trying to get to the bottom of something here? Or are we being accidentally disingenuous? I feel the latter might have occurred. Maybe that was unavoidable due to the nature of a 45 minute video covering lots of ground. As someone who is honestly trying to understand what is going on in the egalitarian side of this debate, I keep trying to find resources that are not afraid to accurately represent the complementarian side because if it is wrong then accurately presenting it would show where it is wrong. To your credit, the article does not do that so I move on to a more important question because maybe you can help me see where I am wrong.
On this one, I lean towards Junia being female though I remain open to the possibility she was male.
On the translation meaning she was an apostle and not just known to them. I find myself in the middle. It's ambiguity to even Greek readers not far removed from when it was written means both are possible to me.
However, where I don't agree is on the elevation of apostle which seems to me to mean missionary, so that an egalitarian position on eldership can hold. It's probably because I am a sent one that I find it easier to believe a sent couple might have done great work in helping start churches but are not as important as instituted leadership. It does not follow for me that because Junia was a good missionary that this somehow correlates to woman can be elders. Even in your notes, you quoted origen calling the 72, apostles. Which is right because Jesus sent them. By this definition we have millions of apostles today and most of them are women. The word apostle is loaded with power because most understand it to be like the super apostle 12 and it's not here and you know that. But calling her an apostle plays to that uneducated view that most listeners would have. I feel like you are trying to create a category of authority between super apostle and missionary that you think elders would have been subject too. But even today when we receive apostolic visits from those covering us, they are subject to the elders and not the other way around. One of the biggest mistake in historical missions or should I say apostleship was failing to institute local eldership and the apostle/missionary became the leader of the church. This has caused much harm. This is why Paul sent Titus back to make sure elder teams had been instituted and churches were not being led by junias and the like.
I haven't studied this next verse so again I might be very wrong in my understanding of it. Does first apostles then prophets and teachers really establish an order of authority like you suggest in your article? Yes if we are talking super apostle. No if we are talking missionary. Apostles come first in the starting of churches, then elders preach and teach and the church is released through good teaching into all her gifts. To me this speaks of natural church progression rather than spiritual authority.
An apostle is just a sent one. If they are good at what they do they may even help start churches (it seems Junia might have done this) but God help that church if they end up leading it. If Junia was not allowed to lead the church despite being a missionary, why should we believe her apostleship has any say on women being elders?
“on Junia … you have not represented Mikes view accurately.” BUT I have checked the transcript and at 13:01 Terran accurately stated Mike Winger’s fall-back position that, if Junia was an apostle, she was not an authoritative apostle. The problem with Mike’s view is that his version of what you call “the middle category” of apostles does not fit the NT. On reading Acts and the NT letters, it is hard to see how pioneering apostles (like Barnabas and Silas and Junia) did not have authority over the churches which they helped to establish. Who has authority to appoint the first elders? For a fuller answer, please see our article responding to Mike’s video on Woman Apostles.
@@markwood3583
you wrote:
Does first apostles then prophets and teachers really establish an order of authority...
Part 15 PAUL TEACHES THAT CHRISTIANITY IS HIERARCHICAL
And a dispute also developed among them as to which one of them was regarded as being the greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles domineer over them; and those who have authority over them are called ‘Benefactors.’ But it is not this way for you; rather, the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
-excerpt Luke 22
-words of Jesus
But as for you, do not be called Rabbi; for only One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for only One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
-excerpt Matthew 23
-words of Jesus
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
-KJV
`And ye -- ye may not be called Rabbi, for one is your director -- the Christ, and all ye are brethren;
and ye may not call [any] your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,
nor may ye be called directors, for one is your director -- the Christ.
-Youngs Literal Translation
Jesus teaches that in Christianity there is no hierarchy. There are no groups
above other groups.
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, and various kinds of tongues.
-excerpt 1 Corinthians 12
-words of Paul
Paul teaches that there is a hierarchy. And then explains
where each group sits within the hierarchy.
Paul, in several of his letters, placed himself in the highest tier.
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle...
-excerpt Romans 1
Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God...
-excerpt 1 Corinthians 1
Paul, an apostle and all the brothers who are with me,...
-excerpt Galatians 1
______________________________________________________
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ...
-excerpt 1 Thessalonians 1
...we could have asserted our authority as apostles of Christ.
-excerpt 1 Thessalonians 2
Paul states that he, Silvanus, and Timothy had authority
because they were apostles.
For if I boast somewhat more about our authority, which the Lord gave...
-excerpt 2 Corinthians 10
-Paul speaking of himself and Timothy
That authority even extended to the ability give
men over to Satan...so they could learn.
...that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.
-excerpt 1 Timothy 1
-words of Paul
The reader is also suggested to read:
Part 10
PAUL REFERS TO HIMSELF AS A SPIRITUAL FATHER
THE MOST SERIOUS FALSE TEACHING OF PAUL
Even though Paul had women that worked along side him in
his ministry, Paul also taught of the hierarchy of men above
women in marriage and also in church settings. This false
hierarchical teaching is different, as it is a direct assault
against all women. It states that half of humanity is lesser,
in a spiritual way, than the other half.
There is too much to cover on this matter here, but much
more is available to the reader upon request.
____________________________________________
Best suggestions:
Essay on Deborah, the Judge and prophetess.
Also, from this essay, from which you have
been just reading, Part 6.
PAUL
HIS FALSE, CONTRADICTORY, AND CONFUSING TEACHINGS
-S. Szpak
Part 6
PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE
'The Bible never says husbands ought to exercise authority over their wives / lead them." God calls Adam to give an acount of the debacle in the garden... as though he was responsible for it. Paul exhorts wives to submit to their husbands... as though husbands have an authority in marriage that wives don't. Peter exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands, reports that Sarah obeyed Abraham. Both Adam and Abraham seem to go wrong (at least in part) by listening to the voice of their wives... as though they ought to have led their wives in those situations rather than the other way around. Do these count? If not, why not?
And in Genesis 12:12 where God told Abraham to "obey" Sarah? Guess that was just a one time deal? And what about all the women who were hurt because God closed up their wombs because Abimelech had taken Sarah as his wife in Genesis 20:18. Imagine Sarah's pain because she listened to Abraham and played along with the ruse that she was only his sister and not his wife. The harm goes both ways. Do these count? If not, why not?
Part 6
PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE
This is sometimes referred to as the deification of a man
over a woman in the marriage covenant, which is what
Paul supports in this false teaching. This false teaching
is serious, and carries over to his false teachings regarding
gender in a church setting. Elders must be men, etc.
Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'
-excerpt Genesis 3 YLT
In Genesis, God speaks of husbands ruling over their wives as a bad thing.
It did become a natural tendency for the husband, due to the Fall. But it
is a sin. This natural tendency is based on nature, if that makes sense.
Men can only see women physically. The women are physically smaller
and weaker. This physical view then translates to the spiritual. Men see
women as less than men in a spiritual way. This natural tendency can
be overcome with the knowledge that men and women are equal in
God's sight. Both are stated in Genesis to be made in the image of God.
And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.
-1 Corinthians 11 YLT
-words of Paul
Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
-excerpt Ephesians 5
-words of Paul
Paul restates his false teaching in Ephesians 5 above.
Paul states that a Christian woman is to submit to an imperfect man, as though that imperfect man was the Christ. So Paul equates a husband, a mere man, to deity. The name for this is deification.
deification (in this matter) - The elevation of a married man to a deity (that is, Jesus)
that rules over one woman, the man's wife.
When Paul writes...
But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
...Paul is ordering Christian wives to violate one of the 10 commandments:
‘You shall have no other gods besides Me.'
-Deuteronomy 5 verse 7
Paul states that the woman/wife is to obey the man/husband just as if
he is the Christ. In this false teaching the husband then becomes a 'god' that
is equal to the Christ.
_____________________________________________________________
And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”
-excerpt Matthew 22
-words of Jesus
If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
-excerpt James 2 NASB
Obviously, a husband's neighbor is his wife.
Weak men NEED wives that will submit to them. When a real man states:
"My wife is my equal. I don't care what anyone says."
A weak and/or foolish man regards the above statement as
sinful, ignorant, and maybe a few other things. Such a man
regards himself as above his wife, in a spiritual way.
____________________________________________________
In Genesis it also states that men and women are created in God's image.
Therefore they were spiritually equal. They still are. This is stated in Genesis
1 before the Fall and again in Genesis 5 after the Fall.
Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
-excerpt Genesis 1
This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created.
-excerpt Genesis 5
As its says above: ...and He blessed them ...
In Genesis, neither the man nor the woman is cursed before or after the Fall.
The serpent is cursed and the 'ground' is cursed.
Even the curse on the ground is lifted in Genesis 8 below:
The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Conclusion
Men and women being equal in God's sight, due to both being
created in the image of God, contradict Paul's false teaching on
the husband being over the wife in marriage. A Christian marriage
is two equals working together and submitting to their boss, Jesus.
@@theNightingaleSings718 - Genesis 21:12 is not some blanket statement that Abraham should obey his wife, no, "whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her, because your offspring will be traced through Isaac....." (Gen 21:12). It is dealing with Isaac ("because...") and the covenant promise that Abraham was given.
And you misunderstand Biblical Headship. Just because someone is "head" of the household, case in point with Abraham, it does not mean he always does what God says he should do... It is Abraham's failure to trust God and his actions caused those things to happen. Danjoconway is correct when he says that Adam listened to his wife and ate, and that God held him responsible.
“Do these count? If not, why not?” BUT the Bible does not say, in any of the examples you give, that husbands ought to exercise authority over their wives / lead them. Nor does it say this anywhere else. The reason it was wrong for Adam to heed the voice of his wife was that she encouraged him to disobey God’s command. See Genesis 3:17 - God’s criticism of Adam is not that he failed to exercise authority over his wife but that, because he heeded his wife, he ate the fruit in disobedience to God’s command.
This is such a great podcast! Would love you guys to do a reaction to Pastor Landon Schott sermon on women in ministry. It went viral and a lot of reaction to it in the same camp of those with Mike Winger. You guys did a great job communicating points while honoring Mike and his work!
With all due respect to our brother Mike Winger, he’s a pastor before he is an academic. His inadvertent ignorance causes him to misrepresent scholarly views and not engage in faithful dialogue.
He prefers dogma over data and thus is unqualified to be upheld as a pioneer on this topic. He is one of the less rational/intellectual apologists. He should stay out of academic space and stick to Sunday messages instead.
Still insightful to listen to for devotion and practical Christian life, but def not academic topics.
@@Apollos_Christian_Apologetics This is too broad to critique, please name a point that he is clearly mistaken on?
@@johnygoodwin3441 he attributes a view to Philip Payne by citing from Payne’s book where he is actually articulating the argument of another scholar. This is evidence of quote mining over close reading. And this is just one instance. There are multiple places where he simply misrepresents, or more charitably, does not understand the arguments of those he quotes.
For instance, he also challenges Linda Belville on what he sees as her faulty appeal to BDAG for a word definition, but his claim only serves to reveal that he does not understand the distinction in BDAG between word definition and semantic range. That is, in attacking someone else’s scholarship on Greek language, he demonstrates that he does not understand how to engage with some of the most basic tools of scholarship on Greek.
These are just basic scholarly mistakes before we even deal with the substance.
I agree with most everything except... because he has so many presuppositions and uses them to engage the texts, I've decided to mostly stop watching him. What good is his instruction if it's not accurate for what any of the authors intended to say, not just with the Biblical, but with scholarly and historical as well. I might listen to find out what sources to seek out on a topic, but I can no longer accept what he says because he has been proven to miss the contexts, to not understand, and to apply presuppositions without recognizing he is doing that.
In 1 Tim 2:9, Paul talks about how women are to dress and adorn their hair.
Did priestess of Artemis ware braided hair, pearls, and gold jewelry as a form of piety (and is Paul pushing against this?)
Or do you think Paul is wanting wealthier Christian women to not flaunt their wealth?
Or is there another option?
Thanks!
Good questions, thank you. In first-century conditions, the mention of pearls tell us that the women Paul had in mind were super-rich. Super-rich women in Ephesus would probably have been involved in the cult of Artemis but we cannot say whether they had been priestesses before they were converted to Christ. For fuller discussion, see our article “Part 12 (The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2)”. If you go to the link posted under the video, you’ll see it in the bulleted list of articles. Within that article, the section most relevant to your questions is under the heading ‘Objection 6 - Not a particular kind of woman?’
@ Hello!
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comment :) I’ll look further into your work.
I think it’d be worth you doing a podcast or TH-cam series in response to it so people can listen to it on the go. I listened to his work since I tilt more egalitarian, but want to hear arguments from complimentarians to be unbiased.
I wad baffled by some of his comments and conclusions. As an example, he claimed that 1 Tim isn’t focused addressing heresies, although the book itself claims otherwise (1 Tim 1:3, 6:20, etc).
He also doesn’t really address any work from Lucy Peppiatt, Nijay Gupta, Mike Bird, Sandra Glahn, or Gary Hoag. He dismissed Dr Peppiatt’s thesis in just a few minutes and didn’t even mention her by name, even though her work had been out for a few years by the time he made his 1 Cor 11 video.
I did learn new content and insights along the way, but was disappointed by his methods.
First option.
Oh, will you guys pray for my friend Steve 💚💛❤️🩵🩷💙💝
The Christian gossip columns really urk me. Its so refreshing to see the guy at ridley ignoring so many real things in culture and wanting instead to engage with gossip columns.
Obviously this isn't an extensive rebuttal video, but even being short I think there's a lot of exactly what you're accusing Mike of. Aside from the terribly condescending tone throughout, the substance of the argument "therefore" making the context of that passage not wide sweeping for women teaching is worth considering...I'm not convinced as Paul goes on to speak about general eldership and their wives, and deacons and their wives (which I'm aware is challenged to be speaking of women deacons not wives of men deacons, but I think we'd see that in Acts 6 where they were told specifically to choose seven men with general qualifications of wisdom and being filled with the Holy Spirit), but my conclusions are subject to being wrong as are yours. My bigger point is that it was emphatically stated that there's no authority structure (maybe I'm mischaracterizing the statements but not willfully), while alluding to 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 7. I'm curious about how you read chapter 11 and getting a good understanding of it because I'm not sure it's easily dismissed, but your appeal to chapter 7 is a good one which I would make if I were coming from your perspective, but I don't think dealing with those passages are where the meat of the discussion is, but they are good points to make, as would be Ephesians 5 from all perspectives (general submission is taught as well as specific wife to husband). I'd mainly be curious to hear your dealing with 1 Peter 3 (seeing that I know your reading of 1 Tim. 2). It seems like what Peter writes completely contradicts your emphatic statements and should at least challenge your condescending and smug demeanor quite a bit and cause a retraction (or even apology as you're urging from Winger) but I'm open to hearing how you read it. I've been wrong many times as I'm sure we all have, and am willing to be humbled when I am...God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble after all, and to your point about Mike, maybe you guys aren't dealing with all of the passages that speak to the subject? God bless
(not this channel)
you wrote:
but I don't think dealing with those passages are where the meat of the discussion is, but they are good points to make, as would be Ephesians 5 from all perspectives (general submission is taught as well as specific wife to husband).
The teaching of a husband ruling over his wife by Paul in Ephesians 5,
is a false teaching, which I address in a long post/study. It can be
pasted up here.
I know Terran has dealt extensively with all of these passages in his book, and Bartlett probably has as well. Also Terran's website has a ton of content. I think all of this is linked in the description?
“I'd mainly be curious to hear your dealing with 1 Peter 3” In my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video. In that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’. God bless you too.
@@Szpak-123 I'm not sure what you think Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1 Peter 3:1-6 mean? I'm open to any substantive interpretation and application that would fit, but I never used the language of ruling over, you did. I see the language of headship and submission spoken of by Paul, and obedience spoken of by Peter. If someone disagrees with those statements (which are surrounded by verses in Peter of submission to governments etc.) then I'll stick with Paul and Peter for sure.
The statements are being made in this video that culture is bringing bias that the Scripture doesn't teach, and what I'm suspecting is that's exactly what's going on. We live in a generation that has put women in a position to despise what God has called them to do and be, and we're bending the Word of God to fit culture. Exactly what is being projected is what is going on with the authors of the video. Jude writes of angels not keeping the dwelling places God had for them and it didn't go well for them, and we should have a general culture of humility and submission as well as in the roles God has given individually. Sarah was blessed by obeying her lord (Abraham), just as Abraham was blessed by submitting to his Lord. No one gets out of being subject to the culture of humility and submission.
Jesus didn't (Philippians 2) but satan did (Isa. 14) and it is consequential. Women should be lived to encourage them in their submission and men should be submitted to and respected to encourage them in their role to love like Christ.
@@CleansingWater
PAUL
HIS FALSE, CONTRADICTORY, AND CONFUSING TEACHINGS
-S. Szpak
Part 6
PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE
This is sometimes referred to as the deification of a man
over a woman in the marriage covenant, which is what
Paul supports in this false teaching. This false teaching
is serious, and carries over to his false teachings regarding
gender in a church setting. Elders must be men, etc.
Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'
-excerpt Genesis 3 YLT
In Genesis, God speaks of husbands ruling over their wives as a bad thing.
It did become a natural tendency for the husband, due to the Fall. But it
is a sin. This natural tendency is based on nature, if that makes sense.
Men can only see women physically. The women are physically smaller
and weaker. This physical view then translates to the spiritual. Men see
women as less than men in a spiritual way. This natural tendency can
be overcome with the knowledge that men and women are equal in
God's sight. Both are stated in Genesis to be made in the image of God.
And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.
-1 Corinthians 11 YLT
-words of Paul
Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
-excerpt Ephesians 5
-words of Paul
Paul restates his false teaching in Ephesians 5 above.
Paul states that a Christian woman is to submit to an imperfect man, as though that imperfect man was the Christ. So Paul equates a husband, a mere man, to deity. The name for this is deification.
deification (in this matter) - The elevation of a married man to a deity (that is, Jesus)
that rules over one woman, the man's wife.
When Paul writes...
But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
...Paul is ordering Christian wives to violate one of the 10 commandments:
‘You shall have no other gods besides Me.'
-Deuteronomy 5 verse 7
Paul states that the woman/wife is to obey the man/husband just as if
he is the Christ. In this false teaching the husband then becomes a 'god' that
is equal to the Christ.
_____________________________________________________________
And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”
-excerpt Matthew 22
-words of Jesus
If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
-excerpt James 2 NASB
Obviously, a husband's neighbor is his wife.
Weak men NEED wives that will submit to them. When a real man states:
"My wife is my equal. I don't care what anyone says."
A weak and/or foolish man regards the above statement as
sinful, ignorant, and maybe a few other things. Such a man
regards himself as above his wife, in a spiritual way.
____________________________________________________
In Genesis it also states that men and women are created in God's image.
Therefore they were spiritually equal. They still are. This is stated in Genesis
1 before the Fall and again in Genesis 5 after the Fall.
Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
-excerpt Genesis 1
This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created.
-excerpt Genesis 5
As its says above: ...and He blessed them ...
In Genesis, neither the man nor the woman is cursed before or after the Fall.
The serpent is cursed and the 'ground' is cursed.
Even the curse on the ground is lifted in Genesis 8 below:
The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Conclusion
Men and women being equal in God's sight, due to both being
created in the image of God, contradict Paul's false teaching on
the husband being over the wife in marriage. A Christian marriage
is two equals working together and submitting to their boss, Jesus.
The Church has been pretty stable on this for the past 2,000 years.
Ummmm, no it hasn't.
Watch again at 19 minutes. The church hasn't been stable on the issue. Up until recently, the church believed women can't lead because they're inferior to men. Complementarianism, like egalitarianism, reflects a new attempt to grapple with Scripture passages after having rejected default interpretations.
Umm
Yes, it has.
@@theNightingaleSings718then please enlighten us on where the church hasn’t been stable? This is only a recent Western European and American phenomenon
Actually no they haven't - do some further study
Please do a refutation of his views on PSA
The first issue I see is that somehow they claim Mike Winger's view is affected by his own culture and situation. That seems very odd as it is clear that based on history, it is egalitarian that is a direct result of cultural influence, not the other way around. Sure, complementarianism is influenced by culture, however, the main principle of male leadership in the church has clearly been the biblical historical view.
Junia didn't teach men per Chrysostom, so she could easily have been ministering to women, common at that time. Also, Michael Burer published a response to Bauckham, Epp, Belleville showing his research stands. 35 new texts, all parallel to rom 16:7 show Paul to mean 'well known to the apostles'. Even egalitarian scholar Craig Keener is realistic, “Given the culture, we also cannot be certain as to the sphere of ministry; perhaps Andronicus and Junia each focused on ministry to their own gender.” So, even if we were to conclude that Junia and Andronicus were in fact counted among “the apostles”, historical and cultural evidence indicates that Junia’s role would not have been identical to that of Andronicus (also John Chrysostom's view).
The creation principle doesn't have to apply to all areas. The bible doesn't say so, the verse is relative to the church not to all areas. Context matters, Paul is applying it to this situation. We have clear examples in the Bible OT/NT that show the principle is not universal so to claim the principle has to apply universal is a made up requirement.
Lastly, Ephesians does imply a reference to authority. “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." The reference to submit and then head clearly implies some form of authority limited to the husband. There is more to it than just authority but clearly authority is not excluded.
Thank you, Jack, for your good comments, which address some substantive points instead of making personal attacks. You are setting a good example, which I hope others will follow. I’ll respond to them one by one.
“they claim Mike Winger's view is affected by his own culture and situation” BUT if Mike Winger’s view is not affected by his own culture and situation, what is your explanation for his frequent misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what egalitarian scholars have written about Scripture? I do not believe that he does this with malice or dishonesty or that he is unintelligent. What is it that prevents him reading plain English accurately?
“the main principle of male leadership in the church has clearly been the biblical historical view.” BUT the historical interpretations were explicitly based on the cultural, non-biblical idea that women were innately inferior to men, so could not lead in any sphere of life. Both complementarians and egalitarians reject those interpretations, but complementarians have sought new interpretations which would justify retaining the same practices that were based on a wrong view of women.
“Junia didn’t teach men per Chrysostom” BUT that is incorrect. Chrysostom does not say that Junia didn’t teach men. Chrysostom does tell us how he squares Mary of Rome and Priscilla with his interpretation of 1 Tim 2 (which, incidentally, is anachronistic and culturally driven, not at all to his usual standard), but he offers no such explanation in the case of Junia. (I think the misconception about what Chrysostom said about Junia may derive from a loosely worded section in an otherwise mostly good quality article by David Shaw.)
“Junia … Burer published a response … 35 new texts, all parallel to rom 16:7 show Paul to mean 'well known to the apostles'.” BUT Burer’s response was unsound and poorly reasoned. The 35 new texts do not show this. Please see our full article responding to Mike Winger’s part 5 video on women apostles, on Terran’s website. About 25 of Burer’s 35 new texts don’t even use the same Greek construction - they are certainly not parallels to Rom 16:7.
I am egalitarian, but saying Mike's view arises from being American doesn't account for RC and EO historically not ordaining women. Also, going to contemporary sources for how the word 'head' was being used at the time seems pretty solid. New Perspective scholars appeal to contemporary sources for support of their understanding of 'works of law', for example.
EDIT: I should have kept watching. They do this exact thing (rightly) for the meaning of 'exercise authority'.
Yes! I realized that Bartlett's point was that Winger looks around for the meaning of "head" from contemporary sources first before doing the obvious: Paul's metaphor is literally right in front of him.
Like we can use the word "cloud" in countless metaphors, and it can be used in a bunch of different ways, but the only way to know exactly how it's being used is to look at the CONTEXT of the metaphor.
And the context of "head" in Ephesians is not a unilateral, one-way exercising of authority, but mutual and interconnected submission, love and sacrifice. If you miss this, you've missed the point of Ephesians.
Context: at the time, in the times ("the past is a foreign country..."), & in the season of life is a helpful "triangle"/?lens through which parse this type of topic, including writings throughout the Bible...🤔
('The older fish asked the younger fish, "How's the water?" To which the younger fish reply "What's 'water'?" ')
I think some of your arguments are fairly weak by comparison to be honest. I love your heart and everything in me wants this to be true. But I want to be true to God's word first (as I'm sure you do too). Just one simple example of where I find trouble with your arguments: While there is historical precedent for understanding Junia as a female apostle, this interpretation is more uncertain and less explicitly supported by Paul’s wording in Romans 16:7, which is more focused on their reputation and influence within the early church. If Paul intended to refer to Junia as an apostle, he would likely have been more explicit in his description. It simply is not clear when Paul was in all other cases clear about who was an apostle. And your paper does not sufficiently counter the use or reasoning used to pick Judas' replacement from “one of the men” (Greek: ἀνδρῶν, “men” or “male individuals”) as a clear requirement. Instead you logically jump to conclude without any evidence based on some pre vs post Pentacost allegory you made... here you are reading into the text to pursue an unsupported claim of some supposed hidden truth.
They already said Junia was obviously not one of the 12, who who obviously all men, and this was very likely on purpose.
However, getting to the _reason_ that the 12 were all male doesn't necessarily tell us that Junia must not be "an apostle," in the broader sense discussed in this video.
WADR, your own reasoning is no stronger.
1 -- The same sentence (Acts 1:21) that requires "men" also requires someone that had been with them the whole time, which would rule out Paul.
2 -- I think you overstate the clarity with which Paul otherwise designated "apostles." It is more clear that Junia and Andronicus were apostles than Silvanus and Timothy; nevertheless, that S and T were such, and in the same class as Paul, is reasonably inferred from 1 Thes. 1.1 with 2.7.
@@JosiahTheSiahfollowing your line of reasoning, Junia existence in scripture in no way make clear that the early church ordained women. That verse isn’t even clear about what role Junia actual had and to claim otherwise is dishonest.
@@michaelsterling2650 Hi there! I haven't given any reasoning. All I did was point out the faulty conclusion in the original comment, and mentioned that the commenter's concerns had indeed been discussed in the video.
At any rate, I certainly haven't presented a line of reasoning.
@ fair enough
I find most complementarians with healthy marriages live like egalitarians.
Genesis 21:11-13. God tells Abraham to listen to his wife snd do what she tells him (concerning ishmael & Hagar)
Richard Middleton has a very interesting take on the whole Isaac-sacrificing story. Essentially Abraham should have pushed back on God's apparent demand that he be killed, and therefore showed he didnt really understand the character of God very much. And because of his willingness to execute his son, both Sarah and Isaac become estranged from him.
20:40
Mutual regarding the body is not equivalent to headship.
1 Peter 3:5-6 KJV - For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
Why do you ignore what Peter instructed?
They address it in their lengthy, detailed response articles at Terran's site. The address is available in the extended description of the video above.
Briefly, the context shows that Peter's instructions are evangelistic: They are to help wives win over unbelieving husbands, and for Christian households to win over unbelieving cultures. It is interesting (to me, at least) that several of the epistles most involved in this debate specifically involve believers in Asia.
@@Norrin777Radd
Peters instructions are in line with what Paul wrote in Eph 5. You are attempting to redirect to a cultural mindset and that is simply not in the text. The context or anchor in the text as to why -- is directly connected to Abraham and Sarah.
Frequently the writers go back to Genesis for the foundation for their doctrine (as did Jesus).
Equal in nature is not the same as equal in order or character traits.
Scriptures state that Christ submitted to the Father,
The Church is to submit to the head who is Christ Jesus
Wives are submit to their husbands
@@matthewford4050 Why are so many people so concerned with authority and submission when Jesus was really concerned about love? And no, not some "wishy washy" and enabling, possessive "love", but the fierce kind of love that sacrifices, dies for, and honors the loved one. I dare those obsessed with authority to try on that command of Jesus instead of pathetic power struggles. Many women understand. "Those who lose their life for my sake will find it."
“Why do you ignore what Peter instructed?” BUT (1) Peter does not instruct men to rule their wives, exercise authority over them or lead them. Those are man-made commands which are not found anywhere in Scripture. (2) We don’t ignore what Peter instructed. On Terran’s website, we deal with 1 Peter in our full article on Mike Winger’s Part 9 video; within that article there is a section called ‘Living humbly among pagans in 1 Peter 3:1-7’. And in my book (Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts) there is a whole chapter on 1 Peter.
Greek of Eph 5 does not say christ submitted to the Father. Ho theos is the word. Why ignore Eph 5 21? Why deny part of God's word. What can you do with only your head without ur limbs, stomach, heart, intestines? Why did you read hierarchy into the word head? Instead of just head body metaphor. The 2 are one. Like Christ and God are one. Ephesians 5 into Ephesians 6 is about how Christian community should live in Christ. However, Eph 5 22 in Greek has no verb "submit". There's an ellipsis... its wives as to husbands... wives what? That's taken from Eph 5 21... submit one to another. So husbands and wives submit one to another. No headship. The culmination of the marriage advice is Eph 5: 31, reinforcing Gen 2:24, God's original design. No headship. The Jewish and Greco- Roman guys... it was radical for them to hear they ought to love the wives as Christ loved the church... i.e SACRIFICIALLY... no headship. Jesus said the same Matt 10:8. Awesome stuff. Look at this awesome theology through a Jesus lens. Not thru incorrect English translations and interpretation via a carnal lens. Adopt the mind of Christ. Not a worldly Genesis 3 cultural indoctrination.
Much insight at Www.tru316.com
And the three never tell us why Jesus chose only men as the Twelve
Who said there had to be any reason? Btw, it was the women that were faithful to Jesus during his final hours, not the 12 🤡
It's an interesting question, but not especially pertinent to the larger question about relationships between men and women in the Church.
@@Wren_Farthing but it is pertinent to the idea of authority and there are gender based hierarchies expressed in scripture. So, it isn’t the end of an argument, but certainly part of it.
@@michaelsterling2650 I recognize it's regarded that way by some, but there are theological and cultural answers to the question that don't have to do with male authority. In my experience with the gender hierarchy conversation the disciples being exclusively male is usually thrown in as an "extra" argument, and often it isn't brought up at all.
@ As I said, it isn’t the defining argument, but it certainly can be, and is, used as an example in a litany of examples that shows an overarching theme in the scripture that we can use to come to know a truth.
Let’s use the concept of the trinity, for example. There are many parts of the scripture that show us that the trinity is the true nature of God. Some are highly compelling and on the nose, others are more complimentary to total truth claim but shouldn’t be dismissed.
As for men having authority in the home..consider Mary , Jesus mother. The angel spoke to her first, she didn't consult her father or her husband to be, or any brothers she may have had, but said to the angel herself...' let it be as you say'.
Also the Samson matter.
And there was a man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was infertile and had not given birth to any children. Then the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold now, you are infertile and have not given birth; but you will conceive and give birth to a son. And now, be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing. For behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he will begin to save Israel from the hands of the Philistines.” Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome.
-excerpt Judges 13
That's because she was the one having the baby, obviously.
I appreciate the willingness to engage with Wingers work on this matter and I welcome the scholarly debate, but I have to say, I did not expect such arrogant belittlement from Christian scholars and I did not expect such blatant straw manning, partially putting words in wingers mouth
This video simply reinforces mike's point that the egalitarian position doesn't have arguments, sorry to see that and from well-situated scholars at that. And to put differences in interpretation down as Mike simply not reading the context again portrays an arrogance I am sorry to see in Christian scholars. I'd love to hear a convincing case for egalitarianism. I grew up under women leadership and still frequent circles and institutions that hold to that position. It would be so much easier to embrace that doctrine. But if this is the best attempt to undergird the position with scripture, then I guess I'll have to remain a complementarian.
@@cirdan4170
you wrote:
I'd love to hear a convincing case for egalitarianism.
Paul never walked with Jesus. Paul taught a hierarchical and false view of Christianity. Men over women. Men over men. I've looked and written informally on this. Once you see it, you can't un-see it.
________________________________________________________
I suggest my free informal postable essay on Deborah. The New
Testament, as we know it, wasn't compiled until about 400 A.D.
The Christians of the first century only had the Old Testament.
Anyone who read what we now call Judges 4, knew a woman could
be a Judge over Israel.
“I did not expect such blatant straw manning, partially putting words in wingers mouth” BUT what strawmanning did I or Terran do? You do not provide any example. We were careful to represent him accurately in our fourteen articles which respond to his videos and we always invited correction. When a few people wrote in with queries, we promptly made any needed corrections. If any more are needed, we will be happy to make them.
@@AndrewBartlett-k7x Claiming that Winger expects men to take authority over wives is the exact opposite he does. He is clear in that he shows the bible calls on wifes to submit not on husbands to subue them. That is quite a strong misquote.
@@cirdan4170 “Claiming that Winger expects men to take authority over wives is the exact opposite he does. He is clear in that he shows the bible calls on wifes to submit not on husbands to subue them. That is quite a strong misquote.” BUT please listen again to the interview. We did not say either that Mike Winger expects men to “subdue” their wives or that he expects them to “take authority over” their wives (whether in the sense of “subdue” or in any other sense).
In our Part 8 response article we said: “the Bible nowhere commands husbands to make their wives submit. Mike correctly says this in his next video (Part 9: 0hr53mins).”
Here is how I explained his view in our interview at around 15:40: “he is very keen that husbands should exercise authority over their wives: he says husbands are the higher authority in the marriage and he says they should take the decisions and this is really important.”
I believe that to be an accurate reflection of Mike Winger’s teaching. He says the “authority structure” in marriage “really matters”, because it “radically affects most people” - the husband’s authority is “super important” and he “can’t overstate the practical impact of getting this topic wrong”. See the Part 8 Winger video, the Lesson Overview and the first few minutes of Part 8. If it is “super important”, with “practical impact”, he must mean that the husband’s authority is to be exercised. (That is not the same thing as forcing submission, which we have never suggested is Mike’s view.)
The way I see it, if Egalitarianism is wrong, then there is an issue of church governance that is in err or even sinful, but if Complimentarianism is wrong then what Christ accomplished on the cross is partially denied.
So if the first position is wrong, there is disorder. If the second is wrong, the Gospel itself is misrepresented.
Thus best to err on the side of the first.
Complementarianism
The priesthood of the New Covenant is a 2-tiered priesthood
based on birthright.
That false and confusing teaching, that states Christian women are less than
Christian men in a spiritual way, but they really aren't, but they really are.
The complementarian teaching prohibits a Christian woman from holding
certain positions in a church. They can't be elders neither can
they teach men. So why is that?
The false teaching makes it clear that the priesthood of the New Covenant
is tiered. There is a hierarchy. Those that are higher, the men, can be in
leadership positions, like elder. They can teach other men. Those in the
lower tier can not be in leadership positions, like elder. They are prohibited
from teaching men, because the men are in the higher tier. It wouldn't make
any sense.
A new believer is automatically assigned their level, higher or lower,
at the moment of salvation, as a birthright. Their gender determines
their tier. A Christian can not move to a higher or lower tier.
A Christian that is in the lower tier (woman) is not allowed to
complain of the tier she was placed in. That would be sin, because
God made her a woman by His choice. She should accept and also
embrace her position in the lower tier.
A church, is either a group of Christian men or a group of Christian men and women.
A church can never be a group of Christian women, because it would be
a group of only those in the lower tier. It would have no elders.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
-excerpt 1 Peter 2
Since the teaching states that women are spiritually inferior to men, but
they aren't, but they are, when did that start?
But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer.
-excerpt 1 Timothy 2
It started with the first woman. She was deceived, and sinned because of it. So we
have a teaching that accepts that men and women are fallen beings. Both genders
are sinful by nature. However women are different. They are lacking the ability
that men have to judge if some situation, some concept or teaching is sinful. This
inability was passed down from Eve to all women. It remains to this day. A woman
in our time was 'lacking' from birth, even from the womb.
So what can be done? Nothing according to Complementarianism. The teaching
states that even an anointing of that powerful masculine being called the Holy Spirit,
is just not sufficient. It states that even the Holy Spirit can not elevate even
one Christian woman to the spiritually superior level of a Christian man.
How do you defend the second premise?
Mike Winger is 100% right. Its amazing how much effort you have to put into making the Scriptures say the opposite of what they say. There is no "end" of patriarchy, for it is God’s social order. Egalitarians do need to repent.
Part of the patriarchal system included men having more than one wife and often one or more concubines. If patriarchy has not ended, do you also support husbands being the head of more than one wife? Do you support husbands having concubines? Women on the side to produce more and more heirs? Because that is becoming more and more common in the church. I have a friend who finally divorced her abusive husband, but not until he told her he was taking a second wife because.....patriarchy.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge's verdict could not be altered or appealed.
A Judge was REQUIRED in scripture to judge only the hardest of cases.
Refusal to accept a Judge's verdict on any matter,
resulted in execution, according to Deuteronomy.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
If your beliefs can't explain all this, they must be false.
Full read time: 10 minutes postable here
@theNightingaleSings718 I'm referring to biblical patriarchy, not that which was the fruit of sin. Nice try though.
@@c.m.granger6870 I guess you need to define for me what you mean by "Biblical patriarchy," because all of the Biblical patriarchs had more than wife or had sex with a slave or servant woman. Do the patriarchs of the Bible not illustrate what Biblical patriarchy is? Please quote for me the list of God's rules for what a patriarch is supposed to be and explain how did the patriarchs in the OT got it so wrong.
@theNightingaleSings718 - where do you get that "patriarchy" must/always includes more than one wife? Perhaps the OP means something different to 20th C writers when they use this word?
I hope he will learn from the knowledge of scholars like you. Sometimes I wonder whether his videos are informed by scholarship, it seems rarely to be the case.
Complementarian vs. egalitarian is a modern discussion. Just as episcopal vs. congregational. All these are historical and cultural issues, part of this age.
I don't know any denominations that are completely in line with the way the first century believers did things. All have some number of adaptations to millennia of change.
The Spirit is not bound by these conversations. He will use the resources he has available to get the gospel out.
Right.. complementarianism vs egalitarianism is a modern discussion because for the 1700 years prior to that, women were just accepted inferior. A course correction is needed in the western church to get it back to where it was first century (honoring of female apostles)
Pretty sure Tertullian would disagree with this
@@massiefamily7229 Tertullian was a man of his historical context as well.
Today is today, and the evidence is that the Spirit is using women to get his work done, particularly in places where men aren't stepping up.
But if some men and women want traditional, then the Spirit will use that as well.
What matters is saving for the eternal. In the eternal, 'there is neither male nor female' and all are equal.
There's no scriptural basis for women not being able to teach or preach other than decontextualized references to obnoxious women at specific types of churches in his day. Phoebe, Priscilla and them show pretty clearly that women are able to do so
Not as Priests.
What are you basing this on?
The demeanor the peimary host displays is telling. He makes grimaces and says things like Mike Winger is "pushing" something. It's almost like theyre demeaning he views, which were largely church views for decades,! Mike Winger is very humble and willing to discuss biblical topics. He also stated he'd wished he found evidence for women pastors but could not. I listened to much if his insightful exegesis of scripture. You men prattle on and give what you feel should be the truth with no evidence. So what if scriptures say Priscilla was a deaconess which means servant? Or that she's mentioned first a couple of times before her husband Aquilla? At other times Priscilla is mentioned second. The fact is when confronting Apollos she was with her husband who helped the encounter. Also Juneia was a servant too as well as other women, these were prominent women and perhaps leaders in rheir businesses. They supported the church and were learned to read Paul's epistles at times. They had money and prestige and could influence, but that doesn't mean they were pastors of house churches or interpreted the bible for men or women laity. Theoughout the Bible, only men were Rabbis. Priestesses were in Pagan religions. Point is, these prominent women had large houses to hold church gatherings and they were in charge of their own households and gave hospitality. So don't read into scriptures what you can't provide in black and white. Mike Winger does good scholarly work and you're all probably jealous!
you wrote:
He also stated he'd wished he found evidence for women pastors but could not.
The Judges. Deborah, Judges 4 and 5.
In all places where I have walked with all Israel, have I spoken a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd My people, saying, ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’
-excerpt 1 Chronicles 17 verse 6 NASB translation
@@Szpak-123 Few questions: 1) Did God raise up Deborah in the same way He did the other judges who exercised leadership over men? Or was this because there was no man who was godly. Checkout the language that indicates God's role in raising up each judge... 2) Did Deborah assert leadership for herself or give priority to a man (Judges 4:6-6)? 3) Was Deborah's prophetic ministry and instruction public or private (Judges 4:5) - did she go out and publicly proclaim the word of the Lord or privately? (Judges 4:6; 14). 4) What is different between Deborah's prophetic ministry and the priestly ministry of the OT? Some thoughts on
@@daveyo8221
Full essay read time: 10 minutes
Postable here.
Were Deborah AND Barak Judges?
Was Barak a Judge?
Was Deborah a Judge?
And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them.
-excerpt Judges 2
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment.
-excerpt Judges 4
The peasantry came to an end, they came to an end in Israel,
Until I, Deborah, arose,
Until I arose, a mother in Israel.
-excerpt Judges 5
Tola and Jair were also Judges.
..., rose up to save Israel...
Now after Abimelech died, Tola the son of Puah, the son of Dodo, a man of Issachar, rose up to save Israel; and he lived in Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim. He judged Israel for twenty-three years. Then he died and was buried in Shamir.
...rose up and judged Israel...
After him, Jair the Gileadite rose up and judged Israel for twenty-two years. And he had thirty sons who rode on thirty donkeys, and they had thirty cities in the land of Gilead that are called Havvoth-jair to this day. And Jair died and was buried in Kamon.
-excerpt Judges 10
The same phrasing is used regarding Deborah, Tola and Jair. They were all Judges.
Deborah:
Until I, Deborah, arose,
Until I arose...
Tola:
"...rose up..."
Jair:
"...rose up..."
Barak is never referred to as a Judge. He was commander of the army.
Deborah was the Judge over Israel at this time. She knew it, and so did Barak.
Now she sent word and summoned Barak...
-excerpt Judges 4 (above) Deborah summoning Barak.
She gave the order for the battle to begin that Israel won.
Then Deborah said to Barak, “Arise! For this is the day on which the Lord has handed Sisera over to you...
-excerpt Judges 4 (above) Deborah ordering Barak.
CONCLUSION
Deborah was a Judge.
Barak was not a Judge.
@Szpak-123 - yes, true, but a bit different wording when it comes to individually introducing some of the judges including Deborah. But we may disagree on the significance of this.
And no, I didn't mean to imply Barak was a judge.
Perhaps more importantly, was Deborah's judging public or in private? See 4:5-6. Private.
Did you notice that it was not her who went to battle, and notice the rebuke of Barak in 4:6-9, who was to lead the army but was shying away from what God instructed him to do, and so therefore how God would use a woman (not even Deborah) instead. No, Deborah is a rebuke of the passivity of men to the leadership task given them, not somehow a model of women as NT Pastors.
@@daveyo8221
The essay in the next two posts would probably
be the quickest way for you to understand my views.
Is Jesus Christ the head of the church?
Of course. The question is whether that implies "authority" in the context of Eph. 5.
@@Norrin777Radd
Paul provides instructions to the husbands and wives regarding their relationship and uses the relationship of the church and Jesus Christ as the model.
Are you suggesting that the Church is equal to Jesus?
The Ante-Nicene fathers understood three main categories.
1. The nature of the person
2. The characteristics specific to the person
3. The order or authority specific to the person
For example,
The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit are 1 nature -- God
Each has specific characteristics, i.e. Jesus died and rose from the dead, but the Father and Holy spirit did not
Each has specific order/authority, The Father is head of Christ, etc.
1 Cor 11 shows us this:
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Connecting this to Eph 5
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
1. Wives submit to husbands
2. For (connected to wives submit) the husband is the head of the wife
3. Even as (connected to above) Christ is the head of the church
4. Therefore (connected to the above) as the church is SUBJECT unto Christ
5. So let (connected to example of the church and Christ) the wives be to their own husbands in EVERY thing.
Just as the church should be subject to Christ in EVERY thing.
IF head does not imply authority, then this means the Church is not subject to the authority of Christ
@@matthewford4050 The context of 1 Cor. 11 is not about "authority." The only time authority is used there, it says that "the woman has authority over her own head."
"Authority" is never mentioned in Eph. 5.
The instructions to the man are to submit to other believers, including his wife (5:21), and to love, serve, and care for his wife (5:28, 33).
The instructions to the wife are to submit to other believers (5:21), specifically to her husband (5:22, 24), and to respect her husband (5:33).
The opinions of the ante-Nicene Fathers are irrelevant, since they were tied to the anti-Biblical notion that women are intrinsically inferior to men.
The fact that head =/= authority in these passages is irrelevant to the fact that the Church is under Christ's authority, since it is shown elsewhere.
@@Norrin777Radd
Looks like my comment was deleted.
In Eph 5:22 and then in 5:23 and 24 talks about wives being "subject" unto their own husbands in the same manner that the church is subject unto Christ.
Are you saying that Jesus Christ submits to the church? Submission and subjection inherently have the idea of authority. but more specifically the use of subjection in the verse 24.
The Greek word for "subject" in verse 24 means:
This word was a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader".
In non military use, this would be voluntary.
The wife is to willingly yield/submit to the authority of her husband in the same way that the Church willingly subjects her self to Jesus Christ.
Reverting to verse 21 for a universal submission clause is simply wrong. Verses 22,23,24 provide clear guidance for husbands and wives.
@@matthewford4050
Part 6
PAUL TEACHES THAT A HUSBAND RULES OVER HIS WIFE
This is sometimes referred to as the deification of a man
over a woman in the marriage covenant, which is what
Paul supports in this false teaching. This false teaching
is serious, and carries over to his false teachings regarding
gender in a church setting. Elders must be men, etc.
Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'
-excerpt Genesis 3 YLT
In Genesis, God speaks of husbands ruling over their wives as a bad thing.
It did become a natural tendency for the husband, due to the Fall. But it
is a sin. This natural tendency is based on nature, if that makes sense.
Men can only see women physically. The women are physically smaller
and weaker. This physical view then translates to the spiritual. Men see
women as less than men in a spiritual way. This natural tendency can
be overcome with the knowledge that men and women are equal in
God's sight. Both are stated in Genesis to be made in the image of God.
And I praise you, brethren, that in all things ye remember me, and according as I did deliver to you, the deliverances ye keep, and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.
-1 Corinthians 11 YLT
-words of Paul
Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
-excerpt Ephesians 5
-words of Paul
Paul restates his false teaching in Ephesians 5 above.
Paul states that a Christian woman is to submit to an imperfect man, as though that imperfect man was the Christ. So Paul equates a husband, a mere man, to deity. The name for this is deification.
deification (in this matter) - The elevation of a married man to a deity (that is, Jesus)
that rules over one woman, the man's wife.
When Paul writes...
But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
...Paul is ordering Christian wives to violate one of the 10 commandments:
‘You shall have no other gods besides Me.'
-Deuteronomy 5 verse 7
Paul states that the woman/wife is to obey the man/husband just as if
he is the Christ. In this false teaching the husband then becomes a 'god' that
is equal to the Christ.
_____________________________________________________________
And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”
-excerpt Matthew 22
-words of Jesus
If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
-excerpt James 2 NASB
Obviously, a husband's neighbor is his wife.
Weak men NEED wives that will submit to them. When a real man states:
"My wife is my equal. I don't care what anyone says."
A weak and/or foolish man regards the above statement as
sinful, ignorant, and maybe a few other things. Such a man
regards himself as above his wife, in a spiritual way.
____________________________________________________
In Genesis it also states that men and women are created in God's image.
Therefore they were spiritually equal. They still are. This is stated in Genesis
1 before the Fall and again in Genesis 5 after the Fall.
Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
-excerpt Genesis 1
This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them “mankind” on the day when they were created.
-excerpt Genesis 5
As its says above: ...and He blessed them ...
In Genesis, neither the man nor the woman is cursed before or after the Fall.
The serpent is cursed and the 'ground' is cursed.
Even the curse on the ground is lifted in Genesis 8 below:
The Lord smelled the soothing aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
Conclusion
Men and women being equal in God's sight, due to both being
created in the image of God, contradict Paul's false teaching on
the husband being over the wife in marriage. A Christian marriage
is two equals working together and submitting to their boss, Jesus.
Yeah… after watching this video, I still agree with Mike Winger.
The purpose of the video was not to persuade anyone to change their mind. To do that, it would have had to be as long as Mike’s videos (43 hours). The purpose was to indicate that there are issues with the reliability of Mike’s work and to introduce our detailed articles. We invite you to read them and pray that you will be blessed in doing so.
I think Mike Winger proves his case very well from the Bible. Speaking as a woman.
If you were able to take the time to watch Mike's videos, I think you should take the smaller amount of time needed to read at least some of the response articles from Terran and Andrew.
@@Norrin777Raddclaims are not proof.
@@michaelsterling2650 Ok. So?
33:13 this completely mischaracterizes Mike Winger type complementarians. I’ll assume that this is just due to ignorance, but winger is definitely not a hyper-masculine type guy concerned with men appearing manly. I can say after listening to lots of his videos - agreeing and disagreeing with many positions- this insinuation is unfair to him. He genuinely takes a posture of trying to hold to what he *sees scripture teaching. Sure, he could be wrong. But he didn’t land on complementarianism out of a concern for not ‘watering down masculinity”. This is an incredibly weak criticism. Would rather see more substantive criticism dealing with the concerns he raises with the scholarship. Don’t just say he doesn’t have the “background”, but share the background he’s missing. Disappointing.
Appreciate the charitable tone and expressing desire to dialogue in the wrap up.
Those of us here who hold to the mutualist view also are genuinely taking the posture of trying to hold to what we see as the Scripture teaching.
I have many friends who do believe that taking away the absolute authority of men is part of the "feminization" of the church and is why men attend church in lower numbers than women. Some churches go to great lengths to do activities that appeal mostly to men like axe throwing and cars competitons with oversized wheels. Meanwhile women do womanly things like get their hair and nails done and learn how to dress attractively for their man. I don't like painting my nails....waste of time and money. Same with make-up. And I've been married 40 years to a man who cooks and sews better than I do. But there is no doubt he is a man. We submit one to the other. We share equal authority.
Dr. Mike Davis does an excellent teaching series on men/women including how patriarchy/hierarchy (what some call complementarian) skews views on masculinity and femininty. You can find it on his youtube channel KICTV. I think it is around episode 54 or 55. Being in authority over others is not what makes men men. Not talking about hyper-masculinity here, just plain old what makes a man a man.
A tweet from MW:
"Christian men are faced with two evils in our culture: On one side we have the abandonment of manhood as if manliness were inherently brutish, oppressive to women, toxic, and something to be ashamed of.
On the other side we have carnal manliness. Narcissism and pride dressed up as virtue. Machismo with no fear of God. This kind of thing is growing at an alarming rate, as if in response to the emasculation of western society. It’s often correct in its criticisms of culture but not in its solutions."
It sounds like to me that he sees both the "abandonment of manhood" and "carnal manliness" as a response to the "emasculation of western society," and I presume the western church.
In other words, in keeping with his voluminous teaching, claiming women to be equal in authority to men "emasculates" men.
So . . . it's three against . . . zero! Did you superb scholars and authors even invite Mike Winger to discuss with you? I am amazed you would have three in agreement without including a scholar of stature similar to you to represent the complementarian view.
Terran and Andrew have repeatedly asked Winger to dialogue with them, and he has declined.
This is only a surface-scratching introduction: 43 MINUTES as opposed to Winger's famous videos totally over 43 HOURS, and Terran and Andrew's detailed written responses.
Have u concluded he wasnt invited?
Terran
Bartlett
Brue Fleming
Nick Quient
Mike davis
What ur Pastor Didnt tell you have all invited him. He declined despite repeatedly claiming he'd love to hear and he'd "love push back".
We need a podcast with Wingers wife 😅
😬 sadly most wives in complementarian marriages can’t (bc of spiritual abuse) or don’t feel comfotable speaking on this topic.
@@_shaylamarr you think that wives in complementarian marriages are being abused? That is a serious accusation that you need to somehow defend.
@@_shaylamarrWhere on earth do you get your evidence for this statement? Asking from position of being a very happy complmentarian wife. 😊 💒
@@_shaylamarr My original response has disappeared???
"most wives in complementarian marriages"???? I am very happy 😊 in this situation - definitely no spiritual abuse, & my husband gives me lots of support to be myself - I love being protected & cared for, being the home maker & not the one to has to bring in an income. 💒
@@_shaylamarrI’m 100% complimentarian and can defend it with scripture confidently. There is absolutely no abuse in my marriage. My husband is very supportive of me in every way. I would urge you not to broad brush and make accusations of people with differing views than you.
💛🩵💜💙🩷❤️💚
This is pure egalitarian cope. It’s still amazing to me that you guys pretend you have church history on your side.
Your arguments are also very weak. Let's say you're right that Junia was an apostle. Let's say she was a woman. You dismiss the idea (14:05) that she couldn't have been a courier apostle, because that wouldn't have gotten her arrested... what a ludicrous notion. Not only would tabellariī have run the risk of sedition, but perhaps - gasp! - she was arrested for doing something other than being a courier. You don't even consider that for the very obvious reason that you NEED her to be a pioneering apostle, assuming you're right about all your other assumptions. And that this one solitary verse is enough to justify this comical egalitarian house of cards.
Why would she NOT be an apostle? The grammar at least leans that way, and there are no Scriptures prohibiting women from being apostles or any other ministry.
Why didn't u invite Mike Winger on this video?
Well, last I heard, Mike has never responded favorably to multiple requests from Andrew and Terran to engage in dialogue.
How did one conclude he wasn't approached? If you look them up the following have invited Winger to dialogue. He declined.
Terran
Bartlett
Brue Fleming
Nick Quient
Mike davis
What ur Pastor Didnt tell you
Mike doesn't do online debates, and has explicitly said he doesn't want to engage with these two gentlemen. So probably not much recourse there 😉
Are you saying women can be priests?
I believe they would say that Scripture shows that women can hold any ministry roles that men can hold.
Whether or not a ceremonial priesthood is even a Biblically supportable New Covenant ministry is a discussion in its own right.
@@Norrin777Radd it’s actually the whole argument because the answer tot hat question determines where authority lies in the church.
1 Peter 2... believing women ARE priests.
I spent 30+ hours studying and trying to respond to just one of Terran Williams' responses to Winger. I felt like I was being pranked, like... "he can't actually believe this is a good argument, can he? Surely he's just messing with us... right?" I don't think he was messing with us. I know he was sincere. But it was difficult to maintain that disposition throughout.
The article was so triumphalist in tone, and then it argued in red herrings and strawmen. It took 30+ hours because there was so much (in my opinion) egregious error to respond to. Truly a baffling experience.
When I argue, I like to think I'm pretty self-critical. I often think, "No, that won't be persuasive. I can already answer this argument from their own perspective. I need to frame it better/differently." It seemed to me like Williams gave NO thought to how complementarians would see and respond to his arguments.
Terran and Andrew were not specifically presenting the egal. case. Their articles can work that way, but they were mainly framed as responses to Mike Winger.
I was a comp. for 20-ish years and have been egal. for the last 20+. Can you give me an example of one of their arguments and how you think a comp. would counter?
“red herrings … strawmen” BUT you don’t say which article you were reading, or identify the “red herrings” or the “strawmen”. We would be very interested to learn more about your concerns. We always invite correction. If you write to us with your detailed comments at the address given in the article, we will be pleased to consider them.
Hermeneutics prioritizes the explicit before what may be implicite. Interprets details in light of the whole expressed design and order of creation as revealed by its designer. Gods purpose is manifest in the compliance of Divine order. Anthrocentric reasoning has not faith as its priority as God has required for reasoning to be rational. Lack of faith in what God has said is rebellion and the cause of strife ,division and disorder.
That whole rant which ends at about 20 minutes was incredible. I don't know how you could miss the clear teaching for husbands to have authority. It's like when Justin Martyr was going around and having debates without having all the theology from the epistles. It's as though someone removed them from your bible and you simply haven't read them.
You gentlemen make alot of Mike Winger's modern cultural context, while not realizing that your own views are a product of your modern cultural context and completely out of step with the church throughout history.
The only church history that should take priority here is the new church history being chartered in the New Testament. Women are welcomes into the priesthood along with men. They are clearly to prophesy and teach as are men. The clear teaching in this new church is not about who has authority over the other, but the one anotherism of submitting one to another....men to women and women to men; men to men and women to women.
Please view that section again and pay closer attention. What Andrew said was that men are never told to be leaders, to exercise authority, etc. w.r.t. women. This is literally true. If you believe it is not, please cite a specific example of men being told to exercise authority over women or wives.
"Modern cultural context" is irrelevant. They did not and do not say that Scripture is outdated. They argue from exegesis of Scripture itself.
@@Norrin777Radd Are you serious? Are you really hanging your argument on the requirement of an explicit statement?
If modern cultural context is irrelevant, then they should not have made such a fuss over it. You're debating them on this point now, not me.
@@Norrin777RaddThe presuppositions are strong with this one. Anyone who blames especially Mike Bird of being influenced by the current culture really has not actually paid any attention to Bird prior to. My favorite thing about mutualists is that they always go back to the 1st century Middle Eastern or Mediterranean contexts to figure out what the intent of the author was rather than smothering the text with presuppositions based in later "church fathers" and church traditions.
Thank you!
I never heard of Mike Winger until this podcast and I looked him up:
"Mike Winger is the featured teacher of BibleThinker online ministry. He graduated from the School of Ministry at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and was ordained in 2006. He has since served in various ministries with a primary focus on being a pastor for the youth, up until a few years ago when the growth and the demands of his online ministry have significantly increased.""
Yeah, I don't think he has any training in bible languages. Scary so many are listening to him.
Two issues:
Logically, there must be a way to make a decision in a marriage, and you can't do it through majority rule. Consensus is wonderful if you can manage it. But ultimately, you need a way to decide if consensus does not emerge. Consensus can only be enforced by threats of leaving. Whoever is more willing to get divorced is in charge. If divorce is not an option and consensus does not emerge, then the only way to get a choice made, is to choose one of the two to be in charge.
Traditionwise, this is hard to accept since you are saying the whole church, every branch, was totally wrong from very shortly after the apostles until very recently.
1. The underlying assumption is that an agreement must be made and partners can’t just resolve the conflict by agreeing to disagree.
2. The position is that the EARLY church had the egalitarian view and eventually succumbed to the surrounding patriarchy of the time.
Both of the issues you raised sound a bit like shortcuts for the sake of simplicity and personal comfort.
To your first point, you're suggesting a hierarchical program to mitigate marital disagreements, but the manipulative tactics you describe the parties using to get their way are characteristic of a marriage mired in sin. In a marriage between Christians, we assume two people indwelled by the Holy Spirit, sensitive to conviction of their sin, open to rebuke and desirous of having their hearts transformed. Of all couples, we should expect a Christian one to be most capable of working through a disagreement. In a situation where one of both parties are committed to sinful behavior, there is a much deeper problem to be addressed than the isolated disagreement they're in at the moment. Giving one of them exclusive license to override the will of the other is not only a terrible "solution" in the short term, it is going to deepen the marital fracturing in the long run. This is especially true if the one holding the license is the one who is in sin, because it entitles him to persist in it.
As for your second issue, the trouble with clinging to tradition is that it can blind you to the truth. It hasn't actually been the WHOLE church who has held to gender hierarchy theology, but it wouldn't matter if it had been. Our commitment is not to tradition, it is to truth, and we should hold our beliefs with the humble recognition of our own fallibility, and that of our forefathers.
If you can't manage consensus in your marriage, you weren't ready to get married in the first place. Consensus decision-making isn't hard. If you can't do it, that something about you, not about the problem this particular strategy of decision making.
@ I agree, and I’m not sure that hierarchy could even be called a “strategy”.
@Apollos_Christian_Apologetics you can agree to disagree on tons of things, but plenty of things there does need to be agreement about, like what rules for the kids
Excuse the ramble, but here is a reaction to this interesting discussion:
I have many reasons for holding a complimentarian view although I don't follow Mike Winger and am holding this view in an egalitarian church world.
Children. Child-bearing. When women in their weakness as childbearers and rearers are fecond and living in a Christian marriage where this is valued, it takes enormous concentration, collaboration, and energy. I believe the restrictions of womans' responsibilities in ministry are directly related to this aspect of life and relationships. There is precious freedom for the ordinary and extraordinary daily needs of ministring to elderly parents, church family, and children. Not holding an official position of leadership is a protective measure so burden upon burden is not piled higher, either from within a woman or from outside expectations.
Home is hard labor but it is rich ministry. Proverbs 31 woman reigns as a "home despot" from her home-base, not the church.
Who ministers in church? Anna prophetess receiving Baby Jesus. Widow. Chilldless. Devoted and highly-esteemed. With exceptions like this and the Judge Deborah, context is everything. Jael killed at home with a tent-peg, not a sword. It was perfectly right, but a shame for the men who should have taken the lead into battle.
It's wrong to infer limitations of roles to belief women are inferior. I never heard that but I see the aspect of being a weaker vessel which seems not acceptable in the egalitarian postion.
Anyway, the formost cause of death worldwide is children in their mother's womb by abortion. Millions every year. If these children were with us, the balance of time to raise and teach them from loving homes/societies then the church dynamic would shift entirely. In China, the One-Child policy robbed families and would easily allow leadership by women who have fewer respinsibilitiies there. I don't see it as a plus though.
Interesting, but it is not an argument based on exegesis of Scripture.
@@Norrin777Radd She cited scripture and exegeted it. Please read it again and pay closer attention.
Have you ever done a search of Mother and father and parents and looked at what responsibilities are given to each? Once a child is weaned, both parents are equally expected to rear, instruct, and discipline the children. The only timeperiod where there is a lopsided burden BIBLICALLY on women is when the child is breastfeeding. After that, the Biblical expectations are equal for both parents.
My kids benefitted from me working outside the home. I worked night shifts, and my husband days. We worked opposite nights/days so one of us was always home with our kids. They were never in outside childcare. The only times they had "babysitters" was when my husband and I would go out together.
Consequently, my husband has probably changed almost as many diapers as I have. I did breastfeed, but also pumped so I could freeze my milk for when I wasn't home. Our kids had the attention of both parents. My husband benefitted because he didn't feel like he was missing out because he wasn't the sole earner. And I didn't feel like doing dishes for the millionth time was my responsibility alone.
As for the weaker vessel? That may have been a reference to women in that society having less options for financial security other than marriage. There is truth that in general, men are physically stronger regarding muscle strength than women. But women tend to be physcially stronger when it comes to the immune system or bearing physical pain without complaint. There really isn't one "stronger" than the other, just each stronger in differing ways.
Undoubtedly child care takes enormous concentration, collaboration, and energy as you stated. That's why both parents need to share the burden and the blessing. It is too much for one person.
And P.S......we also homeschooled. It was all very hard work, but well worth it. It was the toughest job I ever loved.
You want to meet or talk with him to change his errors.
Don't pretend that lay Christians mistake your acerbic patronising as brotherly.
Mike's free online videos may rancour with your scholarly foundations, but he serves God too.
He doesn't agree with you. Leave it alone.
This is unbelievable, its like they want Paul to talk to us like we are so stupid that don't know what authority means. Thats their whole basis. "It does expressly say that". 😲😮😢
We know what authority is, but Paul didn't use a word meaning authority. If he had meant authority he would have chosen the Greek word "archon," instead of "kephale." Kephale is not synonymous with "authority." If you want an answer as to who has authority over the other in marriage, read 1 Corinthians 7, Paul's longest teaching on marital relationship. Both husband and wife have authority over each and both are called to submit one to the other.
We know what authority means.
"Kephale" may or may not mean authority, depending on context; unlike the case in English and German and even Hebrew, it relatively rarely carries that sense.
"Authenteo" probably does not mean "authority" unless 1 Tim. was written by a 2nd-C pseudepigrapher.
In view of your handle (“Berean”), do you really mean that it doesn’t matter what the inspired words of Scripture actually say? Mike Winger teaches that a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife. But there is no such command in Scripture. Do you agree with adding man-made commands to Scripture? Jesus had some strong words about that (Mark 7).
Winger is not humble enough to engage with those who disagree with him. Winger has debated atheists previously who exposed his presuppositions and faulty thinking and he will never expose himself in that way again it seems.
Mike did a thorough breakdown of what scripture teaches on the subject. He was spot on and never once interjected anything unbiblical as I think you are doing.
Have you ever read Paul's teaching in Ephesians about husbands
ruling over their wives?! A serious false teaching of Paul.
@@Szpak-123what are you saying? Paul made no errors. If you don’t believe in the Word of God just say that. It all started in Genesis. However, there are many verses throughout scripture that confirms God’s design for men and for women and who is to lead. Read Genesis 3 and you will see what his design was from the beginning.
@@lesliecooper2261
you wrote:
However, there are many verses throughout scripture that confirms God’s design for men and for women and who is to lead.
Look at it this way, there are 2 sons of Israel having a
hypothetical discussion during the time of Shamgar the son of Anath (Judges 3).
One states that there was no possibility that God would ever
send a woman to be a Judge over Israel. He states his invalid
argument to the other man. We know his argument was invalid
because the next Judge was a woman, that is, Deborah.
What is the valid argument put forward by the man that believed
that God could indeed send a woman as a Judge? If you don't
know that argument then you're missing something.
Keep in mind that the Judge was the primary pastor/shepherd of
God's people during this time period. A Judge could judge
homicide cases. A Judge could teach from the Law, that is,
scripture, when giving a verdict.
The above paragraph is indeed valid. I wrote an informal free
essay on Deborah and am very familiar with her story.
@@Szpak-123 Paul never said that husbands rule over wives.
@@lesliecooper2261 No, Gen. 3 shows what is the case since the Fall, not the beginning. In Gen. 1 and 2, the actual beginning, man and woman are equal partners with no hierarchy between them. Believers -- those of us who are in Christ the last Adam and are new creations -- should not treat the fallen state as our norm.
This is simply rebellion against what God has stated in His word. He is very clear that women are not to hold leadership roles over men in the church. This doesn't mean women can't lead in other aspects in society - but in the home and in the church body, God has given men the role of leadership. That is the safest and most blessed place for women - I'm a woman, and I'm so tired of the false teaching on this topic that leads to such harm.
God clearly states in his word female leaders in Romans 16
I’m so tired of people who rebel against Romans 16, where God clearly says in his word that female leaders are encouraged.
@@Apollos_Christian_Apologetics if it clearly said that then there would be no dispute, right? In fact, there was no dispute until about 5 minutes ago in history and those making the new claim haven’t successfully proved the point.
@@michaelsterling2650 You a mirror for Christmas 🤡
@@michaelsterling2650 That you are unconvinced does not mean the point isn't proven.
Pay attention to Bartlett's comments at about 18:54 of the video. Many of our most respected early theologians wrote of the ontological inferiority of women. How is it that these cultural beliefs and attitudes would have had no influence on their understanding of scripture? Many are quick to blame modern Western culture for the egalitarian reading of scripture, while refusing to contend with cultural influence over earlier interpretations. Intellectual honesty requires that we take culture into account, including the cultures that were the backdrop of the Biblical library.
17:00 “there is nowhere in scripture that says a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife.”
This is blatantly dishonest. Unless you’re jettisoning parts of the New Testament inconvenient to your position, the Bible speaks on this explicitly. Ephesians 5 says literally “Wives submit to your as husbands _as unto the Lord_ ”
In the Old Testament, God addresses men and calls men to leadership. Sure there are exceptions, but as a general rule, men are expected to lead.
This is reflected in titles as well.
Patriarch is a biblical compound word that describes the biblical concept of the home: _patria_ (from _patēr_ , lit. “Father”) + _archō_ (to have primacy, to lead, to rule). Patriarchy is father-rule, and it’s given by God as a reflection of his own divine Fatherly-kingship. It’s in the Hebrew the LXX translates as Patriarch as well:
_Rō'š_ (head, top, chief) _'āḇ_ (Father, head of household)
You say: “This is blatantly dishonest. … the Bible speaks on this explicitly. … “Wives submit to your as husbands as unto the Lord”’. BUT your quote is about what wives ought to do, not about what husbands ought to do. If I say to a woman “you ought to submit to this man”, that is not a statement to the man that he ought to exercise authority over her. The Bible does not anywhere command husbands to exercise authority over their wives. Do you agree with adding man-made commands to Scripture? Jesus had some strong words about that (Mark 7).
@@AndrewBartlett-k7x
You’ve made exactly no viable argument. I think it would be simpler for you to just be honest and admit responsibility scares you, and that you want a mother, not a wife.
If I say “the apple must be eaten” you will understand that there is necessarily an eater. Jesus and Paul don’t command a man “exercise authority” because you can’t just go out into your back yard and conjure up authority. That makes no sense.
No, authority must either be taken or given. If you are committed to non-violence, then willing submission is requisite for authority to be exercised.
So the Bible addresses those who are to yield the authority up to their leaders.
Also, in Genesis, God literally describes woman’s temptation to subdue her husband, and that regardless, he will rule over her. This is part of God’s plan for the restoration of humanity.
@@justindenlinger6304 “Jesus and Paul don’t command a man ‘exercise authority’.” Are you now agreeing with me that there is no statement in Scripture that a husband ought to exercise authority over his wife? I hope so. I invite you to consider how different the actual commands are: love her Eph 5.25, 33, Col 3.19; love and care for her Eph 5.28-29; be considerate to her 1 Pet 3.7; give her honour 1 Pet 3.7; not refuse intercourse 1 Cor 7.3; not divorce 1 Cor 7.11. If you still think husbands ought to exercise authority over their wives, why do you suppose Paul instructed decision-making by mutual consent in 1 Cor 7:5?
@@justindenlinger6304 In Eph. 5:21, who is in authority?
In Phil. 2:3, which person is the "better" one?
In Rom. 12:10, who inherently "has" higher honor?
------------
Why should those who are new creations in Christ the Last Adam treat the Fallen state as normative, rather than aspiring to and imitating the equal status in the original creation?
@
You’re missing the point. Commanding someone to exercise authority is meaningless. If I am talking to two people, and I tell one to submit to the other, telling the other person to “exercise authority” is redundant.
Do you understand basic logic?
Also, God tells Eve explicitly that the man will rule over her.
I’d encourage you to stop brown-nosing to escape the responsibility of leadership.
This is wild. Mike Winger doesn't just assume Paul magically changes who he's talking about in 1 Timothy 2. In vs 8 Paul begins talking to BELIEVERS. He is counseling women who would "make a claim to godliness" how to act. Then he goes on to talk about Adam being created first and Eve being the one who was deceived. It seems you chaps are ignoring what Paul says, not Mike.
“Winger doesn’t just assume Paul magically changes who he’s talking about in 1 Timothy 2”. BUT in substance he does. He doesn’t pay attention to the context or follow through Paul's train of thought. For a short explanation, please follow the link that Mike Bird has given to our article ‘Where Mike Winger Went Wrong On Women’ and go down to our heading ‘#12, In 1 Timothy 2 Paul deals with false teaching.’ For a fuller explanation, please follow the links to our full article ‘The Debates Over 1 Timothy 2’.
I wonder, is Mike Winger really the object here?
The position you’re arguing against is the position that Jesus’s established church on earth, through the succession of the Apostles, has held from the beginning.
Throughout the video you all make authority claims on the matter that you don’t support. You make claims of settled positions that aren’t actually settled, and in fact, are more likely settled in opposition to your position.
Exactly! I'm a woman who is appalled at the false teaching surrounding this issue. Clearly, women are not to hold leadership roles over men in the church.
They literally just said they have a comprehensive refutation in their written work. This is just a summary/overview of it.
@ my fiend, how does that contradict what I wrote? Anyone can refute anything, it doesn’t make it authoritative. If it were actually authoritative, the matter would be settled. The matter is not settled in the way they think it is, quite the opposite.
It would be like them saying that water is not wet and giving a “comprehensive refutation” and then calling the matter settled. Of course, they’d still be wrong in their claim that water was not wet.
@@michaelsterling2650It’s the implication you make that they are “settled in their opposition” that’s unjustified from a mere summary of their written works. Textbook example of judging a book by its cover 😐
@ why are you writing settled in their opposition in quotes? I never wrote those words to be quoted, nor is that a position I posited.
They certainly may be “settled in their opposition”, but that isn’t the point. The point is that the matter at hand is not settled because of their opposition. Make sure that you are attributing to me ideas that I’ve actually expressed.
I'm confused how you come to the conclusion that Ephesians gives the same council to both husbands and wives..... Wives, subject yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church..... Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her........ This is not the same council. You say nowhere from Genesis to Revelation does scripture say for husbands to lead? Is counseling wives to subject themselves to their husbands not also counseling husbands to lead??
“I’m confused how you come to the conclusion that Ephesians gives the same council [counsel] to both husbands and wives” BUT that is not my conclusion and I haven’t said that. Some of the counsel that Paul gives is the same and some of it is different.
“Is counseling wives to subject themselves to their husbands not also counselling husbands to lead?” No, it is not (an instruction to A to do X is not an instruction to B to do Y). And all the more in view of Eph 5.20-22. The best Greek texts read “… always giving thanks to God the Father for all things in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, submitting to one another in reverence for Christ, wives to their husbands …” Wives’ submission is an example of the submission to one another that is expected of all believers.
...also have you noticed women pastors often lead more progressive churches or like Jotce Meyer Kathryn Kendrick and give false teaching!?
What about Robert Morris and countless others who have committed grave sexual sins? Or Jimmy Evans who holds so tightly to power and authority that it crosses over into the realm of spiritual and emotional abuse?
We all sin. We all fall short. We all need each other. Men need women and women need men. We balance each other out. We keep each other in check. But when there is one way authority and one way submission an environment is created that is ripe for abuse of all kinds.
Firstly Mike Winger came from a egalitarian position,or at least very sympathetic. 2nd . You mentioned his cultural experience blinding him. But according to Catholic catechism which is way older than WW2 Patriarchy is God's established way. 😊 As well as Orthodox belief as well. 3. There never was a female Apostle in the bible. . The church Fathers never mentioned 1. Also just as a point of of interest Young men are gravitating toward churches with more traditional views of Authority. Especially the Orthodox church. Which has a 75 percent increase in the USA in last 5 years. Mostly young men . So you guys all sound intelligent and progressive etc. but evangelicals are losing a generation.
@@matthewashman1406 Your first sentence is not true, actually. Winger’s background is complementarian. While he claimed at the start of his video series that he wanted to be convinced by egalitarian theology, if you listen long enough, it becomes evident that he’s pretty committed to the idea of male authority. As Andrew Bartlett indicates here, his engagement with egalitarian scholarship is cursory and unserious.
@@Wren_Farthing Yes. Mike was (is?) a Calvary Chapel pastor. CalChap is firmly comp.
Mike Winger is complementarian with hierarchy. He is not egalitarian or mutualist by any stretch of the imagination
I watched the first 25min of this and have to turn it off. Several times Bartlett says "why didn't Paul say that. He doesn't say that." Well, YES, he does. Smh. Then he resorts to demagoguery with "that's crazy" and stuff life that. No, it's not. But worse, it makes NO attempt to deal with the SUBSTANCE of Winger's arguments.
I turned this on in the hope of seeing a SUBSTANTIVE argument in opposition to Winger's. Instead all I've seen is verification and confirmation that his claims about Egalitarians are correct. They are simply without substance and merit. Time to move on.
Sorry, but you need to watch and listen more closely, and look at what Scripture does and does not say. In the first 25 minutes, Andrew's repeated assertions that Scripture does not say certain things occur almost exclusively between 15:00 and 20:00, and his assertion is that Scripture in general, and Paul in particular, do not tell men to rule, or to be the decision maker, or to exercise authority, w.r.t. women or wives. This is literally true.
Skimming the transcript, I don't see any place where Andrew said of Mike's work, "that's crazy." Where he *did* use the word "crazy" was in regard to the ideas Mike mistakenly attributes to various egal. scholars he cites.
I'm sorry the video did not meet your lofty standards. Frankly, if you really expected a 43 MINUTE video to deal substantively with Mike's 43 HOURS of videos, you were foolish. If you do want to see substantive responses, Mike Bird placed a link to Terran's site in the above description of this video.
@@Norrin777Radd It's interesting that, in a different reply to another individual, you're perfectly comfortable with reasonable inferences if it will allow you to believe women were apostles. However when it comes to male headship, you require an explicit statement.
@@Norrin777Radd - Oh you're sorry alright. Now get the GIANT Sequoia Tree outta your eye socket, get outta the Flesh, get saved if need be, and then go practice what you preach. Andrew's repeated assertions and now your assertion are literally false.
Starting at the 19:13min mark people can read and listen for themselves what Mike says. And I hope folks will see your comment and this and then go listen to that segment because it highlights EXACTLY what I said and what Mike said about how horrible the Egalitarian arguments are!! Here's this scholar giving the best he's got:
//despite all the hours he's spent on it he just doesn't perceive the
arguments on the other side. He keeps misreading what scholars say//
Now isn't that just chocked full of SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE-based refutation! Contrast that with the 40+hrs of coverage Mike did where he painstakingly laid out one logical argument after another.
I'm sorry you think common sense and backing up one's claim are lofty standards. The video doesn't come to proving it's headline claim. One could even say doesn't even make an attempt to do so. Thus proving Mike Winger's claims about Egalitarians true again.
And I'm sorry that you think 43min isn't enough time to '"deal substantively with Mike's 43 HOURS of videos". Even more sorry that you think it's foolish to think such. No, I wasn't foolish enough to think they would deal with all of his 43hrs but I was foolish enough to think they would deal with SOME of it. That said, thank God I'm not such a fool as to think they could not have deal with at least SOME SUBSTANCE in 40min.
“Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” (Pro. 17:28)
"A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind." (Pro. 18:2)
"A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul." (Pro. 18:7)
Please read their substantial points they make on the Terran Williams' website referenced above. They go into minute detail on why Winger is wrong in each and every one of his videos. If you are still unconvinced, then so be it. But in this short video, they cannot possibly give the same focus on substance since Winger's video are dozens of hours long. Saying their claims are without substance without reading their claims is itself lacking in substance.
You need to know two things.
#1) Understand Deborah and what a Judge was (I have a short free postable essay.)
#2) Understand and know, that Paul wasn't a perfect teacher.
(That is another free essay.)
Commentary with scripture, with limited opinions.
Summary of the argument: winger isn’t very bright and probably deep down a bad oerson
BUT that is not a summary of anything that we have said. And it is in direct conflict with what we have in fact said.
Mike Winger NEVER engages in debate or with those who push back on his stance - on anything! I don't know for sure, but I suspect Mike is self-educated rather than having a university background and I think there's a lot of insecurity there. He has said that debate is 'not his thing' so, make of that what you will.🤷
I'm really not sure of the relevant credentials of any of the involved parties other than Mike Bird.