Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women, Part III: The Epistles

Editor’s note: We encourage you to read Part One and Part Two of this series, and also to read Bartlett and Williams’ entire response for a full analysis. Bartlett and Williams have also summarized their main findings in a video interview with Michael Bird, which you are encouraged to like and share. Finally, stay tuned for Part Four in this series! 

Video 7: Galatians 3:28 

Mike’s title and strapline: The Egalitarian “Silver Bullet” Bible Verse/NO MALE AND FEMALE IN CHRIST?
Our summary: Makes a valid correction but misses the true significance of  
Galatians 3:28. 

We agree with Mike’s basic point in this video—this verse does not definitively establish that eldership in the local church is open to women. However, Mike misses the full significance of what Paul says and paints a substantially misleading picture of how egalitarians generally view Galatians 3:28. 

Paul is teaching that the Galatians, as one in Christ, have a new identity, worth, and purpose. In the light of this, it looks implausible that women, any more than Greeks or slaves, should be barred from leadership in the new community of those who are one in Christ. 

Video 8: Background to Paul’s “Head” Metaphor 

Mike’s title and strapline: Male Headship: Is it REALLY Biblical?/AM I THE “HEAD” OF MY WIFE? 
Our summary: Misreads scholarship, misrepresents history, misreads lexicons, and sets up an unsound approach to Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 11. 

There is probably just one instance where Paul calls a husband the “head” of his wife—Ephesians 5:23. It is the only instance that Mike himself regards as definite, since he acknowledges Paul may not be referring to husbands when he uses the “head” metaphor in 1 Corinthians 11:3, and there are no other possible instances. 

Mike makes four claims, all misleading or mistaken, about the head metaphor, all of which are designed to establish the meaning “authority over.” Although meaning depends on context, Mike proceeds backwards. First, he looks outside the two passages to determine the metaphorical meaning; then he tries to read them using his chosen meaning. 

Claim 1 is that common medical thought in New Testament times supports the metaphorical meaning of “head” as “authority over.” This claim is an over-simplification. Mike’s research into medical history is deficient. While it was possible to use the Greek word for “head” as a metaphor for “authority over” in the first century, the head was understood to have a number of functions, including the supply of nourishment to the body. 

Claim 2 is that Paul’s metaphorical and contextual use of “head” in relation to both Jesus and husbands implies authority. But in examples from Colossians 1 and 2 and Ephesians 1 and 4, authority is associated with Paul’s head metaphor in some instances and not in others. No firm conclusion can be drawn from this data about Paul’s meaning in Ephesians 5:23 or 1 Corinthians 11:3.  

Claim 3 is that “Church history totally supports headship implying authority.” Mike makes this extravagant, historically false claim without carrying out the needed research. Even a brief review of what Greek church fathers wrote shows a division of opinion on the meaning of the head metaphor. There were early Greek commentators, such as Cyril of Alexandria and Eusebius, who understood kephalē (head) in  1 Corinthians 11:3 as a metaphor for “source,” not for “authority over.” 

Claim 4 is that lexical study of kephalē strongly supports the authority implication. This claim is incorrect. Our response lists fifteen Greek lexicons, dated from the 12^th century to the 21^st century, which give the metaphorical sense “source” for kephalē. The evidence shows that the meaning “source” for a “head” metaphor definitely existed in Greek prior to Paul. 

Mike’s whole approach is faulty. He reaches a premature conclusion about the meaning of “head,” a conclusion erroneously based on inadequate and faulty research. Since “head” metaphors could be understood in more than one way, the only way of discovering Paul’s particular meaning in the two passages is to examine carefully, without preconceptions, what Paul writes in those passages. 

Video 9: Mutuality in Marriage 

Mike’s title and strapline: Have We Misunderstood “Wives Submit”?/WIFELY SUBMISSION OR MUTUAL SUBMISSION? 
Our summary: A disappointing demonstration of how to wrongly handle Scripture. 

1 Corinthians 7 

Mike’s approach to this passage vividly illustrates that he has not learned how to think and reason in a non-partisan way. He again fails to read accurately in context. He considers only three verses (1 Cor. 7:3–5). He distorts the meaning of Scripture by treating the plain language of these verses about marital authority as an anomalous exception but gives no reason at all for doing so. He misreads the verses as relevant only to sexual relations in marriage, although Paul expressly teaches about joint prayer and joint decision-making. 

This is the only passage in the New Testament which speaks expressly of authority in marriage, and it specifies the husband’s and the wife’s authority with identical words. Paul is unmistakably teaching equality of authority in marriage. The whole chapter supports this, standing in direct contradiction of Mike’s asymmetrical view of marital authority. 

It is also the only passage in the New Testament which explicitly teaches how decisions should be taken in marriage—by mutual consent. Paul’s teaching shows that husband and wife should live in gracious, mutual submission.  

Ephesians 5 

To understand what Paul writes in this passage, and especially to interpret his “head and body” metaphor in verse 23, it is necessary to consider the whole context, look closely at the exact words, trace Paul’s train of thought, consider his reasons for writing, and take a Christ-centered, canonical approach. 

Mike does not take any of these precautionary steps, instead making some foundational mistakes, such as: 

• Misunderstanding the meaning of Paul’s word for “submit.” 
• Starting his exposition in mid-sentence.
• Relying mainly on an English translation, rather than the Greek. 
• Ignoring Paul’s own explanation of his “head” metaphor. 

We conclude that Mike’s interpretation of Ephesians 5 is not correct. A godly marriage is a relationship of mutual submission and mutual love. 

1 Peter 3 

When Mike insists on his interpretation, he is adding to Scripture a reason for wives’ submission, which Peter does not give. Because he has not learned to read accurately in context or to think and reason in a non-partisan way, he does not perceive that he is adding to Scripture. 

1 Peter 3:7 is not a call to Christian husbands to exercise authority over their wives. This is certain when we study Peter’s exact words and read them in the context of his train of thought (which Mike doesn’t do). If the husband seeks to exercise authority over his wife, rather than humbly honoring her as a
co-heir of God, his prayers will be hindered. 

Peter’s view of marriage is fully consistent with the equality and mutual submission seen in
1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5. 

Video 10: A Mirage of Authoritative Male Headship (1 Corinthians 11) 

Mike’s title and strapline: All the Head Covering Debates (1 Cor 11)/THE HEAD COVERING CONTROVERSY 
Our summary: Mike’s interpretation is in conflict with Paul’s actual words. 

Mike interprets 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 as teaching authoritative male headship, but he hesitates over whether he should say that the passage is about the authority of men over women or about the authority of husbands over wives. That question presents him with a dangerous dilemma. 

If he says that Paul’s concern is about an authoritative relationship of husbands and wives, derived from creation, his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 collapses into obvious nonsense (see verse 12). But if Mike says that Paul’s concern is about an authoritative relationship of men and women, derived from creation, then that relationship should put all women under the authority of all men with whom they interact, which Mike rightly acknowledges would be inconsistent with Scripture. This dilemma points to the fact that his male-authority interpretation is mistaken. 

From verse 2 to verse 16, there is not even one express word in the text about men’s authority over women. Mike is again building a doctrine on a supposed implication. Mike says readers should not add ideas “not present in the text,” but he does not apply that standard to his own view. The hierarchical-complementarian interpretation is based on faulty reasoning and lack of close attention to the text. 

In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul teaches about the created differentiation of men and women and insists on honorable behavior. But he places no limitation on the scope of women’s participation in the church. 

Video 11: 1 Corinthians 14 Doesn’t Silence Women 

Mike’s title and strapline: 5 Views on “Women Keep Silent” (1 Cor 14:35-36)/“WOMEN BE SILENT” 
Our summary: A one-sided presentation, which ignores fatal objections to Mike’s interpretation and does not engage with strong evidence that vv34–35 do not express Paul’s own view. 

Verses 34–35 state three times that women must keep silent and not speak when the church is assembled. Trying to understand these verses in their context presents numerous difficulties, not least that they appear to be in strong conflict with Paul’s surrounding words, which give instructions for both men’s and women’s vocal contributions to corporate worship. 

Mike’s video argues that the real intent of the disputed verses is to prohibit women from taking part in weighing prophecies which are spoken in the assembly, but his interpretation collides with the actual words in the text in every possible respect. It makes Paul into a writer who is either so careless or so incompetent that he says something radically different from what he intends to convey. But Mike doesn’t perceive these objections. 

On the assumption that the disputed words are original to Paul, no satisfactory solution for the interpretive issues has yet been found, unless perhaps that Paul is quoting opponents at Corinth.  

One of the other proposed solutions is that the two verses do not belong in Paul’s letter. Rather, they originated as a comment that someone wrote in the margin of an early copy. The comment got added into the main text by mistake, at two different places in different manuscripts. Mike calls this the “interpolation” view and subsequently rejects it without ever engaging with the evidence for it. 

We do understand the concern that removing the two verses is too convenient a way of solving the interpretive difficulties. That was what we thought ourselves, until we examined both sides of the discussion and saw that the interpolation view was the most probable solution based on the best available evidence. 

Video 12: In 1 Timothy 2, Paul Deals with False Teaching 

Mike’s title and strapline: ALL The Debates Over 1 Tim 2:11–15 … (it took me a year to make this)/WOMEN CAN’T “TEACH OR HAVE AUTHORITY”? 
Our summary: Mistakes, false perspectives and faulty methods lead to an interpretation that is in conflict with Paul’s actual words. 

Mike claims he has carried out a thorough review of all the debates over the interpretation of
1 Timothy 2:11–15. But despite the great length of the video, his claim of thoroughness is thoroughly mistaken. This is disappointing. 

He displays false perspectives and faulty methods. He repeatedly misrepresents and strawmans the arguments of writers with whom he disagrees and avoids addressing their real case. He omits to pay close attention to Paul’s train of thought and the context of Paul’s remarks. He makes a false separation between combating false teaching and promoting right teaching and living and leaves entirely unaddressed some questions of central importance. 

Mike makes errors of reading, fact, and reasoning when researching the meaning of authenteō, ignores that Paul himself clearly signals that he is still giving instructions for dealing with false teaching, and takes Paul’s references to the creation narrative (1 Tim. 2:13–14) out of their context. He asserts that Paul is relying on a creation principle of male authority, but he does not say how he knows this or, in particular, how he knows that Paul is not using the story as an Old Testament illustration of a woman teaching a man falsely. 

Because we always strive to believe the best of our brother Mike, we did not expect crucial parts of his Part 12 video to be as poor as they were. We did not expect the magnitude of his unwitting mistakes and inconsistencies, the shallowness of the analysis which he offered, or his groundless criticisms of the motives of those with whom he disagrees. 

Our conclusion is that Paul is not stating a general rule that faithful women must not teach or exercise authority in the church. He’s insisting that a woman caught up in false teaching must learn, and he is not permitting her to lead a man astray. Instead, a woman caught up in false teaching should learn with quiet humility and walk with Christ our Savior, in faith, love, holiness, and self-control.¹  

Video 13: It Is for Freedom That Christ Has Set Us Free 

Mike’s title and strapline: Everything Women Can and Can’t Do According to the Bible/THE VIDEO YOU’VE ALL BEEN ASKING FOR 
Our summary: Mike’s new Leviticus for women, full of complexity and harmful uncertainties, and where his application torpedoes his interpretation. 

In Part 13, Mike tries to justify and explain his practical guidance on what a woman is or is not permitted to do. He summarizes his teaching as three pillars, which he then tries to apply. In his own words, the pillars are: 

Related Resources

Popular Articles

Hanging Onto Galatians 3:28
What Does Galatians 3:28 Actually Teach?
Leading Together in Christ: A Biblical View of Authority
Male and Female as Full Gospel Partners
Words Matter: How a Corrected Translation Transformed a Community

Academic Articles/Book Reviews