Where Mike Winger Went Wrong on Women, Part II: The Narrative Texts

Editor’s note: Part 2 of this series summarizes the response to Mike Winger’s videos on the narrative texts in the Old and New Testaments (videos 2–5). We encourage you to read Part One of this series, as well as Bartlett and Williams’ entire response for a full analysis.

Video 2: Men and Women Created as Partners (Genesis 1–3)

Mike’s title and strapline: “Was Women’s Submission Just a Curse to Be Overturned?/BUT HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU”
Our summary: Builds a house of cards by adding an implication into Genesis 1–3.

For a nonpartisan reader, the teaching of Genesis 1–3 about men, women, and authority seems pretty straightforward: Men and women are made in God’s image to be co-rulers over creation, as human beings are basically the same while complementing each other, and are not subject to male rule until they are disobedient to God. Even John Chrysostom, a vocal advocate for the subordination of women, saw clearly that God’s design in Genesis 2 was for the full equality of woman and man. 

Because Chrysostom lived in a culture where male rule was taken for granted, he missed a big point: Since our Lord Jesus Christ came to overcome the effects of human disobedience to God, humans are working against our Lord if we try to maintain man’s ascendancy over woman. 

Mike is therefore faced with the difficulty that there is nothing written in Genesis about male authority over woman before the disobedience (Gen. 3). To construct a foundation for his complementarian outlook, Mike argues that a creation design of male authority is implied. 

In brief, Mike does not read accurately in context because:

• He fails to consider the narrative technique and narrative structure of Genesis 2–3.
• Although he correctly recognizes that in Genesis 1 ’ādām refers to humankind, both male and female, he mistakenly ignores this meaning in his reading of Genesis 2–3.
• He confuses purpose with authority by discussing the woman as man’s “helper.”
• He fails to notice that 1 Corinthians 7 rules out his interpretation of the man’s naming of the woman.
• He misreads Romans 5, muddling Adam’s representation of all humankind with Adam’s supposed authority over his wife.
• He misses the full significance of the Creator’s authoritative word of explanation in Genesis 2:24, which contradicts the patriarchal system.

Mike shows that he has not learned to think and reason in a non-partisan way because he assumes that, in Genesis 2, the woman is given God’s command by the man. There is in fact no indication of this in the text.

A supposed implication is not a sufficient basis for a doctrine, and certainly not for a doctrine that subordinates 50 percent of the human race.

Video 3: Women in the Old Testament

Mike’s title and strapline: “How Women Could and Couldn’t Lead in the Old Testament/WHY NO FEMALE PRIESTS”
Our summary: Downgrades Miriam and Deborah and misunderstands the significance of the OT priesthood.

Miriam 

While Moses was the main leader of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, Micah 6:4 shows his brother Aaron and sister Miriam were co-leaders. At least fourteen English Bible versions translate Micah 6:4 using the word “lead” or “leader” to refer to the function which God gave to Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. This translation fits the context and is supported by it. 

Mike does not pay attention to the context, accusing egalitarian Philip Payne of a “reckless handling of the text” because he offers this translation. Payne and other learned translators read Hebrew; as far as we can tell, Mike does not. Yet he publicizes that incorrect accusation to his large audience.  

Deborah 

Mike believes that leadership of God’s people at the highest level is reserved by God to men. That supposed principle conflicts with the story of Deborah as presented in the biblical text. 

Deborah is an example of a woman called by God to lead and to exercise the highest authority over God’s people as their civic and spiritual leader. This is apparent from close attention to Judges 2:16–19 and chapters 4–5. She even summoned, commanded, and commissioned Barak, Israel’s most powerful man. 

Of all the leaders in the book of Judges, Deborah alone is like Israel’s great leader Samuel in the threefold tasks of judging the people’s disputes, prophesying God’s word, and issuing instructions for battle. Mike neither perceives this similarity nor offers any comment on it. 

The Old Testament Priesthood 

Mike’s theory is that priests had to be male because of men’s creation-derived “male role of authority.” But Scripture does not state a reason for the qualifications for priesthood.  

However, Mike candidly admits that the Bible does not say that women are disqualified because God wants to preserve male authority. His speculation does not reflect the actual biblical requirements: A priest had to be a male descendant of Aaron without physical defect. If Mike thinks that the qualifications for priesthood were based on a differentiation in creation-derived authority, he needs to explain why a descendant of Aaron had more creation-derived authority than a descendant of Jacob’s firstborn, Reuben, and why an able-bodied person has more authority than someone with a physical defect. Mike offers no comment on this objection to his view. 

Biblically, the priesthood of the old covenant foreshadows the ministry of Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest, in whom both female and male believers become priests, now and in eternity (Hebrews 2–10; 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

Video 4: Leadership and Teaching in New Testament Churches

Mike’s title and strapline: “Women Leaders in the New Testament/WERE WOMEN OVERSEERS ELDERS OR DEACONS?”
Our summary: Derailed by a multitude of elementary mistakes and by failure to consider objections.

Qualifications for Elders

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit and his gifts were given to men and women alike. In New Testament times, it could not simply be assumed that women should be excluded from church eldership. If there was to be a rule excluding women from being appointed as elders, it needed to be communicated to the churches in no uncertain terms. 

Paul does not do this when he sets out qualifications for church elders in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:5–9. As a result of relying on masculine pronouns inserted in English versions, Mike thinks they require that all elders be men who are able to teach. He sees this as a “very strong argument” against the egalitarian position that women may be elders. But prominent complementarian scholars fairly acknowledge that the qualifications or indicators set out by Paul do not clearly exclude women. Unusually, Mike regards Paul’s lists of qualifications as “the exact, specific requirements,” but nearly everyone other than Mike reads them as indicative rather than legislative. 

Qualifications for Women Deacons

Mike interprets 1 Timothy 3:11 as listing the qualifications for women deacons. We agree that this is a justifiable interpretation. Mike thinks that this verse shows, by contrast with 3:1–7, that no women may be elders. That is a misunderstanding which largely flows from his insufficient attention to the qualifications for elders. 

In both cases, Paul indicates that he is talking about women as well as men. In the list for elders, he does this by context (women are the subject of the preceding verses) and by his choice of a gender-neutral pronoun in 3:1 and 3:5 (Greek tis—anyone). In the list for deacons, he does this by interjecting in 3:11 an indication that the same requirements as in 3:8–10 apply to women deacons. 

When Mike revisits this topic in his Part 13 video, he refers to Paul’s idiomatic expression (“one-woman man”) used in verses 3:2 and 3:12 and says, “I’ve never seen a single example of that term being used in Greek in any text to refer to a woman or a mixed gender group.” But John Chrysostom (a native Greek speaker, elsewhere cited by Mike) explained that in 3:12 this expression applied to both men and women. 

Women as Church Hosts

Egalitarian scholars believe that, because New Testament women hosted churches in their houses, they probably became elders/overseers of those churches. This is implied by what is in the text of the New Testament and from historical knowledge of the responsibilities of householders in Greco-Roman culture. Mike disagrees. He says that this belief is a “serious, egregious scholarly error.”  Upon examination, it becomes apparent that Mike misreads and misunderstands the writings of several scholars. 

Mike also makes the elementary mistake of thinking that, in the relevant respects, Greco-Roman culture is like today’s Western culture. Although it is not the case for many of us today, in Greco-Roman culture the host held a degree of legal responsibility for what went on in their home and for their guests—quite a powerful, practical imperative for the host to be an elder. 

Priscilla

Mike correctly notes that Priscilla, with her husband Aquila, taught Christian doctrine to Apollos, a man. But Mike asserts that Priscilla did not teach Apollos with authority. 

In Acts 18, Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila arrive in Ephesus together, a team of three. When Paul departs from Ephesus, he leaves the couple there to continue the work of leading, guiding, and teaching the new group of believers. Paul later describes Priscilla and Aquila as his co-workers (Rom. 16:3).  

Their function is confirmed by the way they deal with Apollos (Acts 18:24–26). Why should that great orator have taken any notice of Priscilla and Aquila? Because, as the situation demanded, they were authorized by Paul to oversee the fledgling church. They hosted the church in their house (1 Cor. 16:19) and drew Apollos into the fellowship (Acts 18:27). 

The functions of elders or pastor-teachers are to lead and shepherd the flock and to teach apostolic doctrine. Those are the functions which Priscilla and Aquila performed in Ephesus. 

Phoebe

Mike rightly affirms that Phoebe carried Paul’s letter to Rome (Rom. 16:1–2), but he balks at the idea that Phoebe, as the letter-carrier, probably explained Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians, as stated by N.T. Wright. Mike’s familiarity with Greco-Roman languages, literature, culture, and history is not remotely comparable with Wright’s. This doesn’t stop him contradicting Wright on a matter of Greco-Roman practice in the first century AD, claiming there is no evidence for the practice of letter-carriers explaining letters to the recipients. There is serious historical research on this based on detailed study of primary sources. Contrary to Mike’s view that women must not teach with authority, Phoebe, as Paul’s authorized representative, was likely chosen by Paul to be the first person to explain his letter to the Romans to an assembled church. 

Video 5: Apostles and Junia

Mike’s title and strapline: “Were Women Apostles in the New Testament?/MARY THE APOSTLE?”
Our summary: Misunderstands “apostles” and downgrades Junia by advancing a very improbable interpretation of Romans 16:7.

Mary Magdalene, Apostle to the Apostles

Mike strongly criticizes N.T. Wright for his description of Mary Magdalene as “apostle to the apostles.” Owing to lack of background knowledge and lack of research skills, Mike is apparently unaware that this description of Mary Magdalene has been in use for more than a thousand years. By commissioning Mary to announce his resurrection to his disciples (John 20:17–18), Jesus demonstrated that women could be heralds of his resurrection, including to men, and this was played out in the early church in various ways. 

Junia, a Pioneering Apostle

Mike rightly concedes that Junia was indeed a woman, not, as some have claimed, a man named Junias. However, Mike believes that she was not an apostle but merely “well known to the apostles” (as Romans 16:7 is translated by the ESV and NET). This interpretation rests mainly on two idiosyncratic scholarly articles that ignore the context of Paul’s remarks, downplay the testimony of native Greek speakers concerning Paul’s meaning, and ignore John Chrysostom’s independent knowledge of Junia as an apostle. 

To accept Mike’s view that Junia was not an apostle, it is necessary to believe in a highly improbable historical scenario: That the Church Fathers blundered into accepting Junia’s apostleship despite being firmly opposed to women’s leadership and public speaking in their own day. A wide scholarly consensus rightly affirms that Paul commends Junia as an outstanding apostle. The ESV, the NET, and Mike are outliers. 

Mike does have a fallback claim: If Junia was an apostle, she probably ministered mainly to women, without exercising authority over men. But this claim gives the word “apostle” a meaning that it does not have in the New Testament.  

If we are to be faithful to the relevant sense in which the term “apostle” is used in Scripture, we must infer that Junia exercised spiritual authority over the churches which she was instrumental in establishing. 

The Twelve Apostles

Mike mistakenly believes that Jesus’s choice of the Twelve shows that the highest ongoing spiritual leadership in the church is reserved for men. 

But the Twelve—as twelve free Jewish men—are not presented as a template for future ongoing leadership. They had a special function, and Mike seems to be unaware of the standard evangelical understanding. Jesus’s choice of twelve Jewish men served a specific, symbolic purpose at a particular moment in redemptive history, showing that Jesus was reconstituting Israel around himself. Junia’s service as a pioneering apostle is evidence against Mike’s mistaken belief. 

Video 6: Some Concessions

Mike’s title and strapline: “Things I Didn’t Know as a Complementarian/THE NEGLECTED SCRIPTURES”
Our summary: Mike distances himself from some more extreme positions.

We have not written a response to Mike’s Part 6 video, because there are more important matters to focus on.

Part 3 of this series will respond to Winger’s videos on texts in the Epistles.

Related Resources

Popular Articles

Deborah and the Box of Womanhood
The Priesthood of ALL Believers
Priscilla Speaks
Forget Everything You Think You Know About Mary Magdalene