Women in Ministry

Notes are from a series of talks by Mike Winger. Complete list of resources are available at the bottom of these notes

Why we can’t think biblically about Women in ministry

Two terms:

Egalitarians: There is no role differences between men and women in church leadership

Complementarianism: Thinks that men and women are equal in value and dignity but different in roles

Reasons why we can’t read the bible

We can be committed to beliefs before we ever approach the bible

— When a women says that she is called to ministry: she has bypassed the bible

— When we think our life experience answers the question of what the bible says

— To avoid bringing conclusions to the bible text, look at the texts in their historical / grammatical / contextual context

2. The evils of patriarchy is to blame for gender differences

— Some have privilege, position and power while others do not

— Even if you are right, you can no longer read the bible

— You have decided ahead of time that the bible must lead me away from the evils of patriarchy

— Some Christian scholars hold that the bible is wrong and immoral in this area

3. The philosophical argument that the equality of personhood rules out differences in roles

— See, Good News for Women, A biblical Picture of Gender Equality, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis

— Discovering Biblical Equality,Biblical, Theological, Cultural & Practical Perspectives, 3rd Ed.

— Groothuis argues what is found in a lot of egalitarian writings: if women cannot exercise leadership over men, it makes women less human. She presents this argument in the form of a syllogism

a. If a permanent, comprehensive, and ontologically grounded subordination of women is justified, then women are inferior persons.

b. Women are not inferior persons.

c. Therefore women’s subordination is not justified.

Three qualifications:

— Permanent: This is not permanent

— Women are not under submission to a man if she is not married

— It is in this speck of life

— We are not to view this current life as if it is our permanent state, don’t store up treasures on earth

— If you are not an elder in your church, you are submitting to the elders and most Christians are in this state

— Comprehensive

— It is not comprehensive

— Why does male authority equate to comprehensive control over every area of life

— It doesn’t! A women is to follow Christ no matter what the husband says

— Groothuis speaks as if all women are submissive to all men and ignores relational aspects, as if every man can command a women

— Ontological grounded

— This means a women’s submission is because of her nature, i.e. ground in her nature

— Not allowing a women to be exercise her capacity of FILL IN THE BLANK (decision making, leadership, etc) is to make her less human

— Groothuis believes you don’t have to do these things but at least be given the opportunity, otherwise, you are not human

— The Levites were permanently able to lead in certain ways that the rest of Israel was not allowed to do

— The Levites role was not based on their ability but their nature: they were descendants of Aaron

— Another example, only a Son of David could rule the land

If you believe her argument, then you are not allowed to conclude that women are prohibited from having authority over men. Your interpretation of the bible is killed.

Philip B, Payne. Man and Woman, One in Christ

— Payne makes a different argument

— If you are equal in Christ than we can’t exclude anyone from leadership based on gender

— Payne equates being an elder the same as being a Christian

— But, not every Christian is called to be in leadership, but that doesn’t make us less Christian

These philosophical arguments kill bible study

4. Some say that “complementarianism” leads to abuse and therefore is bad

— Abusive behavior towards women rules out different roles

It is no longer credible to simply state from the pulpit that complementarianism, due to its loving kindness, does not facilitate gendered violence. It is by definition a system of permanently unequal power distribution with rigidly defined gender roles. These are some of the conditions under which abuse is known to flourish. Complementarianism, even if it could be enacted in perfect loving kindness, creates not only systematic discrimination but implicit and explicit biases that disadvantage women.

— If we take this view that complementarianism causes domestic violence, then you have to take the analogy further

Government is a system of unequal power, you would have to argue to “defund” the police and government

Church authority and abuse is also well known

— Story-driven theology keeps you from reading the bible

— I can’t think biblically if I have decided ahead of time what the answer is going to be

— We decide ahead of time what God has to say, and then we find a way for God to say it

— If you torture scripture long enough, you can make it say anything

— This is at the heart of Redemptive - Movement Hermeneutic ( RMH) which is prevalent in JOF

5. Thinking that submission is inherently evil

— Submission is evil automatically

— Linda Belleville, adjunct professor of NT at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, is so opposed to submission that she says no one had authority in the early church, therefore, women can be in every role

6. When you allow one passage to rule the rest or let the one rule the one

— You basically put one verse against another

— One side uses 1 Tim 2

“And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” ( 1 Tim 2:12 )

— The debate is over but it doesn’t address what do other passages teach?

— Can a women teach in a small group? Can a women be an elder in the church?

— Sometimes, when this is not taught in the context of the whole bible, it becomes too strong of a rule

— The other side uses Gal 3

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” ( Gal 3:28 )

— We need exegetical teaching to see what the bible teaches

Was Women’s submission just a curse to be overturned?

— Both sides agree that Genesis 1-3 is foundational to understanding roles of men and women

Genesis 1: The creation

— Not must disagreement

— Adam is used for both male and female and no distinction of role or authority

Genesis 2: The creation of Man and Woman (significant debate on all these points)

— Eve is made from Adam

— Adam names her

— She is called his helper

Genesis 3: The Fall

— The most quoted passage on women in ministry

— Why is Adam given greater responsibility after the fall?

— Why will Adam rule over women and should it be fought against ?

The Creation

— The word for Man and women in Gen 1 is the Hebrew word אָדָם (ha’adam) means mankind

— They are both given equal domain over everything

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” ( Gen 1:27-28 )

— In verse 27 him refers to both male and female

— Both man and women are in God’s image; consider the value of humankind!

Domain

— Women have authority over creation; no distinction

— In verse 28, the imperatives and verbs are all plural including to have dominion

— There is no subordination of women in chapter 1 or separation of men and women in their authority

— Genesis 1 is the relationship of Man and Woman to creation

— Genesis 2 is the relationship of Man and Woman to each other

The Creation of Man and Woman ( 1:7-25 )

Things to notice

Adam is made first

Eve is not present when Adam gives the animals their names

Adam names Eve

Eve is called a helper fit for him

Eve is created from Adam while Adam is created from the ground

Adam said that the women was bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh ( 2:22 )

Phil Payne, an egalitarian implies no lesser authority:

The man’s joyful exclamation, bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, emphasizes the man’s recognition that man and women share the same essence. Throughout scripture bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh identifies shared standing or kinship never subordination.

(Dr. Philip Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An exegetical and theological study of Paul’s letters, p.45-46)

— Does Adam calling Eve bone of my bones rule out authority differences?

— 2 Sam 5:1 David is asked to rule over “his bone of his bone”

— David is asked to be their king; we are family so come rule over us

— David is not ruled out as an authority simply because he is “bone of his bone”

— The one who is the bone and flesh will be ruled over by the other (David)

— Judges 9:2 Abimelech asks if he should rule over them or the sons of Jerubbaal (Gideon)

— The reversal of 2 Sam

— Those who are the sons of Jerubbaal, were ruled over by Abimelech

— He who is the bone and flesh will rule over them, not the bone and flesh

—Payne’s second point is that because the man is told to leave his mother and father, and not the other way around, it implies equality

— Payne notes that the man leads the father and mother’s authority, not just the patriarch (p.47)

—The husband and wife are not under the parent’s authority once they are married

Thomas R Schreiner, Two views of Women in Ministry, is a complementarian

Schreiner provides six reasons why Genesis 2 supports Adam having authority over Eve

1) God created Adam first and then Eve and this implies leadership

— Dr Phyllis Trible says that Adam had no sex until after Eve was created! (God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality)

— Adam is connected to the word “earth” and sexually undifferentiated in Gen 2

— The animals came from the earth, but man is different than the animals; we are in God’s image

— Gen 2:23 refutes this because she was taken out of Adam (ish) which which is a male term

— The text clearly disagrees with Trible’s view who is pioneering a feminist agenda

Schreiner is also saying, in this first point, that the first born implies leadership and that person had a greater authority; in the ancient culture the eldest was considered to have more authority. We have to read the bible through the lens of that culture not project our culture on the bible

— Egalitarians push back: animals were created before man ( Gen 1 )

— Gen 1 & 2 should not be laid on top of each other and studied that way

— Gen 1 is the creation order; man is the crowning achievement; Gen is a very separate account

— Ancient Hebrew would have completely ignored when animals were created

In both the bible and the culture we have idea of primogeniture that gave the firstborn a double share of any inheritance ( Deut 21:17, seemingly illustrated already in Gen 27:19 and 49:3, spiritualized in 2 Kgs 2:9 and presupposed in Luke 15:12 ) ( Craig L Blomberg, Two views on Women in Ministry, 129)

— Egalitarians push back: Not always the case, there are exceptions

That the women is formed after the man does not imply subordination or inferiority either, since there are numerous examples in Scripture of a younger child being given preference (e.g. Joseph, Gen 37:5-11; Jacob, Gen 25:22-23; David 1 Sam 16:1-13; Gideon, Judg 6:11-16). The term firstborn is often associated with the concept of preeminence, however, and this that may be relevant in regard to some new Testament passages ( e.g. Ex 13:1; Deut 21:15-17; Num 3:13; 1 Chron 5:1-2; see also Rom 8:28; Col 15). ( Mary Conway, Discovering Biblical Equality)

— What is notable about the exceptions is that they are exceptions. Primogeniture is the rule. These exceptions are teaching us something

— Gen 2 stands out as the rule because there is nothing there to tell us that there is an exception

— Early readers of Gen 2 would have been very likely that Adam had a special role

— Egalitarians almost always ignore the New Testament which is sometimes giving commentary on the Old Testament ( 1 Tim 2:12-13 )

2) God gave Adam the command not to eat from the tree but He did not give Eve that command

— God may have been giving him a higher authority

— He would have also had to teach her all the names of the animals

3) God created Eve to be a helper for Adam (Gen 2:18)

— What is meant by the Hebrew word translated “helper”

—Some argue that it means insubordination; but in English when a teacher helps a student, the teacher is not subordinate to the student

Egalitarians Linda Belleville says every other use of this Hebrew word does not have the idea of submission attached to it ( Gen 2:18, 20; Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26, 29; Psalms 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9-11 [3x]; 121:1-2 [2x]; 124:8; 146:5; Isaiah 3:5; Ezek 12:14; Hos 13:9; Dan 11:34 ). The most common person who is described as being a Helper is our God.

— Many will go too far and suggest that helper implies help that only God can provide

—These Egalitarians will elevate Eve above Adam

— Philip B Payne, will go so far as say that “ezer” means that Eve was man’s saviour ( Payne, Man and Women, One in Christ, 44-45)

— These ideas come up all the time in the debate

The other side will argue: what makes "ezer” a helper in each context is that he or she comes to the aid of someone else who bears the primary responsibility for the activity in question, implying that Adam is responsible (Craig L Blomberg, Two views on Women in Ministry)

— In Psalm 146:1-7 The “ezer” refutes Blomberg

— This use of “ezer” is not telling the oppressed that finding justice is their primary responsibility; it is the responsibility of government

— The complementarian view that “ezer” means Eve is subordinate is a weak view

4) Adam exercised his leadership by naming the animals and he named her women

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” ( Gen 2:23 )

— And He names her again

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living ( Gen 3:20 )

— This shows a sense of leadership

— God didn’t name her Eve, Adam did it

Imagine if the Genesis account had happened this way and if it would change your view. Imagine God formed Adam and Eve at the same time instead of Adam first and then Eve from Adam. Imagine God formed Adam and Eve both from the ground instead of Eve from Adam. Imagine that God brought the animals to Eve and Adam and together they named them, instead of making Adam name them and then tell Eve. Imagine if Eve named her husband and Adam named his wife. Do you feel the difference? Do you feel the flow of the passage does seem to indicate that in the relationship between man and women there is a difference and it is in some relationship to leadership, specifically to husband and wife. I’m not going to extend this to all men and all women, because I think that is a mistake. So I reject the egalitarian view and this is huge. This is 99% of the debate right here in Genesis 1-3. I reject the egalitarian view as presented by Craig Keener in his book, Paul, Women and Wives. He presents that the wife’s subordination is only presented as a result of the fall, as a result of her husband’s sinful abuse of power over her. Every egalitarian in the world agrees that subordination of women only shows up in Gen 3 after the fall as part of the curse. What I am saying is that I reject that view. I think that there is a godly, tensions-less, leadership that Adam has with Eve in Gen 2 as part of God’s good creation. That seems to be what the passage is saying, whether I like it or not. Equality is seen in Gen 1 because they are both in God’s image, they are both given domain. And, Adam’s leadership is seen in Gen 2 because he is made first, he names Eve, she is made for him implying there’s an authority difference. He is given the commands and the tasks instead of it being given to both of them but it is also limited because she is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. She is made from him and not from other things. She is under his leadership but sharing over domain of the earth. I think abuses happen when domain over women becomes the thing instead of a type of godly leadership and voluntary submission— Mike Winger

The Fall: Gen 3:1-20

A few things to notice:

Satan tempts Eve first

Adam’s accountability is different than Eve’s accountability

God instructs Adam first and He approaches Adam first after the sin to rebuke him

Notice the difference between Eve’s curse and Adam’s curse

5) The serpent subverted God’s pattern of leadership by tempting Eve rather than Adam

— When Satan goes to Eve it is because he is trying to go around God’s leader, Adam

— This is the weakest part of the complmentarian argument

— The serpent is not challenging Adam, he is challenging her obedience to God

6) God approached Adam first after the couple had sinned, even though Eve sinned first (Gen 3:9)

— Philip Payne, the egalitarian, says, Yes, you might think that God is giving Adam more authority because he is holding him to account for what they both did. And you can add to this that God ordered this to Adam and not to Eve, and that He holds Adam to account. But he says what is really happening here is what is called a chiastic structure. A chiastic structure is a mirror of itself, a part A, B and then B and A. Payne says that Gen was written in such a way as to keep the poetic structure and has nothing to do with authority. (And his chiasm is complicated, disjointed and contrived)

— Adam is held accountable in the New Testament (egalitarians ignore the NT)

— When God offers his own interpretation of Gen, you can’t ignore it (Ro 5:19)

— Adam bears the primary responsibility for the fall and has greater responsibility

— Eve’s curse only impacts women (Gen 3:16); Adam’s curse impacts all of creation and all mankind ( 3:19-20)

What is the desire that Eve has and what is ruling over her mean in Gen 3:16?

To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” ( Gen 3:16 )

Linda Belleville, an egalitarian scholar says:

— The desire that Eve has in the curse is physical intimacy (sexual) and that Adam is going to rule over either that desire

— The husband will have sexual demands of the wife: “A better fit with the context is that the man’s rule takes the form of sexual demands” ( 2 views of Woman in Ministry)

— She says that we have misunderstood curses — it was never about authority, its real meaning is men will make sexual demands of the wife

— The women will want intimacy because of the curse but the man’s desire for intimacy will rule over her desire for intimacy.

— Her second interpretation is that the translation should be “it will rule over you”

— This totally changes the meaning of the verse

— The women will desire her husband but that desire for her husband may mess her up

— While “it” is a possible interpretation, it is not the natural interpretation; this is why no one translates the pronoun as “it”

— A healthy sexual intimacy in marriage is a good thing, and the marriage bed is undefiled ( Heb 13:4 )

— This is torturing the verse to make a point

Rule over (mushal)

— Used in Gen 1:18 referring to the sun and moon ruling over the day and night; Gen 4:7 we have Cain having to rule over his desire to harm his brother; Gen 37:8 Joseph’s brothers don’t like his prophetic dream of ruling over them; Gen 45:8 Joseph rules over Egypt

— None of these examples are about sex

Desire for her husband (chuka)

— Brown, Driver, Briggs says this a women longing for a man

— Could be sexual desire or to dominate

— This could go either way

— Desire is good, but what is bad now is that she wants control

A refutation of the egalitarian position: Gen 4:7

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” ( Gen 4:7 )

— The Hebrew grammar is identical as in Gen 3:16

— Here God says that sin’s desire is contrary to you but you must rule over it; sin wants to control him but he must rule over it

— Belleville says that this is about intimacy because sin is like a lion which wants to eat you and eating is intimate!

— Sin doesn’t kill Cain, but it does control him and the next thing he does is kill his brother

MacArthur

Just as the women and her seed will engage in a war with the serpent, i.e., Satan and his seed (v. 15), because of sin and the curse, the man and the women will face struggles in their own relationship. Sin has turned the harmonious system of God-ordained roles into distasteful struggles of self-will. Lifelong companions, husbands and wives, will need God’s help in getting along as a result. The woman’s desire will be t rule over her husband, but the husband will rule by divine design ( Eph 5:22-25 ). This interpretation of the curse is based upon the identical Hebrew words and grammar being used in 4:7 to show the conflict man will have with sin as it seeks to rule him.

— All egalitarians says that propagating or pushing that a husband has authority over his wife in some measure is somehow pushing the curse

—All these arguments depend on Gen 2 not having anything to do with Adam’s authority

— But it seems clearly that it does and so they all fail

— But if there is some pre-existing design of a relational role of differing authority between man and women in Adam and Eve’s creation in Gen 2, then we can’t interpret Gen 3 just as a blanket thing to totally try to overturn

If we take the egalitarian view and apply it to Adam, we can see the mistake. Adam is told that farming will be more difficult due to thorns and thistles. But we shouldn’t think that farming is bad. We should just elevate the curse which is the thorns and thistles. In Gen 3:16 submission will become more difficult because it will involve conflict now, it doesn’t mean that submission was bad or authority was bad. The battle for submission and authority in the home will make things more difficult, but that doesn’t mean that the core idea is only a result of the fall. Let’s back up and look at the whole curse: farming is good but now it will be more difficult. Child bearing is good, but now it will be more painful. Marriage roles are good but now they will be much harder and will include conflict. The language egalitarians use of “reversing the curse” could better be accomplished through Eph 5 where the solution is that husbands self-sacrificially love their wives as themselves and they never force submission and the women voluntarily shows respect and submission as unto the Lord. (Mike Winger)

Additional Resources

Mike Winger, (57) Why We Can't Think Biblically About It: Women In Ministry part 1 - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQSlQLYQsE

Mike Winger, (57) Was Women's Submission Just a Curse to Be Overturned? Women in Ministry part 2 - YouTube,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1LO2THPzZI&list=PLZ3iRMLYFlHuBtpJlwi7F5JYw3N5pKyLC&index=2

Complementarian Authors

Discovering Biblical Equality,Biblical, Theological, Cultural & Practical Perspectives, 3rd Ed.

Schreiner. Thomas R, Two views of Women in Ministry

Keener, Craig S. Paul, Women and Wives: marriage and women’s ministry in the letters of Paul

Egalitarian Authors

Payne, Philip B. Man and Women, One in Christ: An exegetical and theological study of Paul’s letters

Trible, Phyllis. God and the rhetoric of sexuality

Conway, Mary. Discovering Biblical Equality

Blomberg, Craig L. Two views of Women in Ministry

Groothuis. Rebecca Merrill. Good News for Women, A biblical Picture of Gender Equality

Belliville, Linda. Two Views on Women in Ministry

Freedman, David R. Woman, a Power Equal to Man