What do you think?
Rate this book
Unveiling Paul’s Women: Making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16
Whether people realize it or not, the ideas in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 have had a huge impact on the role of Christian women in the church through the centuries. These fifteen verses have shaped worship practices, church structures, church leadership, marriages, and even relationships between men and women in general. They have contributed to practices that have consistently placed women in a subordinate role to men, and have been used to justify the idea that a woman should not occupy a leadership or teaching position without being under the authority or "covering" of a man. It is strange, therefore, that academics and pastors alike continue to note how confusing and difficult it continues to be to make sense of these very verses. In this little book, Lucy Peppiatt not only highlights the problems associated with using this text to justify the subordination of women, but offers a clear and plausible re-reading of the text that paints the apostle Paul as a radical, visionary, church planter who championed women in all forms of leadership.
"Lucy Peppiatt is an outstanding academic, writer and leader. In the excellent Unveiling Paul's Women, she offers sensible and insightful argument undergirded by rigorous scholarship. At last, in her thesis, the text finds a natural and logical flow. A flow that's consistent with what appears obvious from Paul's teaching and practice elsewhere in the New Testament." --Roger Ellis, Global Coordinator of the 24-7 Boiler Room Network and Academy Director
"Unveiling Paul's Women is like Paracetamol Plus or Panadol ActiFast or Anadin Extra for some well-known theological headaches! She has treated us to a quick-acting, bite-sized, power-packed, tablet-shaped wonder medicine for the weary, wary or just curious. Prepare to end up inspired by honest and erudite wrestling with scripture, and in the future, make it a rule to get anything she writes and then share her books with friends." --Chris Tilling, Graduate Tutor and Senior Lecturer in New Testament Studies, St. Mellitus College
"I'm persuaded that Lucy Peppiatt is pushing us to significant improvement [in interpretation] when it comes to 1 Corinthians 11." --Scot McKnight, Julius R. Mantey Professor of New Testament, Northern Seminary, Lisle, IL
Lucy Peppiatt is the Principal of Westminster Theological Centre and the author of Women and Worship at Paul's Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (2015).
"Lucy Peppiatt is an outstanding academic, writer and leader. In the excellent Unveiling Paul's Women, she offers sensible and insightful argument undergirded by rigorous scholarship. At last, in her thesis, the text finds a natural and logical flow. A flow that's consistent with what appears obvious from Paul's teaching and practice elsewhere in the New Testament." --Roger Ellis, Global Coordinator of the 24-7 Boiler Room Network and Academy Director
"Unveiling Paul's Women is like Paracetamol Plus or Panadol ActiFast or Anadin Extra for some well-known theological headaches! She has treated us to a quick-acting, bite-sized, power-packed, tablet-shaped wonder medicine for the weary, wary or just curious. Prepare to end up inspired by honest and erudite wrestling with scripture, and in the future, make it a rule to get anything she writes and then share her books with friends." --Chris Tilling, Graduate Tutor and Senior Lecturer in New Testament Studies, St. Mellitus College
"I'm persuaded that Lucy Peppiatt is pushing us to significant improvement [in interpretation] when it comes to 1 Corinthians 11." --Scot McKnight, Julius R. Mantey Professor of New Testament, Northern Seminary, Lisle, IL
Lucy Peppiatt is the Principal of Westminster Theological Centre and the author of Women and Worship at Paul's Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (2015).
108 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 7, 2018
35 people are currently reading
534 people want to read
About the author
Lucy Peppiatt
13 books60 followersDr. Lucy Peppiatt has been Principal at Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) since 2013. She teaches courses in Christian doctrine and in spiritual formation. She holds bachelor’s degrees in both English and Theology. She completed her MA in Systematic Theology at King’s College, London, and her PhD through the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Lucy’s research interests are Christ and the Spirit, Charismatic theology, theological anthropology, discipleship, 1 Corinthians, and women in the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 9, 2025
An intriguing interpretation of a thorny passage—short and highly readable. I’m not fully convinced, in part because I have a hard time believing Christians have been reading it so wrong for so long. But I don’t claim to have an alternative reading that is anywhere as coherent. Her interview with Preston Sprinkle (Theology in the Raw) is a nice supplement to the book. In short, I’m still mulling…
Some observations that I think are true—none of which are necessarily endorsements or critiques (how’s that for playing it cagey?):
1. Peppiatt’s argument won’t convince your average conservative Anabaptist because it is anything but a “plain sense” reading of the text (whatever that even means these days).
2. The conservative Anabaptist practice of head veiling goes well beyond a “plain sense” reading and touches on issues of cultural identity and inherited tradition.
3. Conservative Anabaptists are more okay with ambiguity, uncertainty, and outright contradiction than other interpretive traditions. Go ahead and break your heads over hermeneutic coherence, we tell the theologians—just tell us what to do and we’ll do it.
4. The passage is genuinely difficult, and anybody who pretends as if it’s simple and straightforward is probably not reading it closely enough.
5. One’s sense of belonging to—and appreciation of—the conservative Anabaptist tribe is a greater factor in one’s likelihood to practice the head veiling than a robust understanding of what 1 Corinthians 11 actually means. (That’s a more convoluted version of what I’m getting at in #2.)
Some observations that I think are true—none of which are necessarily endorsements or critiques (how’s that for playing it cagey?):
1. Peppiatt’s argument won’t convince your average conservative Anabaptist because it is anything but a “plain sense” reading of the text (whatever that even means these days).
2. The conservative Anabaptist practice of head veiling goes well beyond a “plain sense” reading and touches on issues of cultural identity and inherited tradition.
3. Conservative Anabaptists are more okay with ambiguity, uncertainty, and outright contradiction than other interpretive traditions. Go ahead and break your heads over hermeneutic coherence, we tell the theologians—just tell us what to do and we’ll do it.
4. The passage is genuinely difficult, and anybody who pretends as if it’s simple and straightforward is probably not reading it closely enough.
5. One’s sense of belonging to—and appreciation of—the conservative Anabaptist tribe is a greater factor in one’s likelihood to practice the head veiling than a robust understanding of what 1 Corinthians 11 actually means. (That’s a more convoluted version of what I’m getting at in #2.)
May 18, 2024
I still have plenty of questions after reading this book, but the one thing I am certain of is that this issue is much more complicated and complex than conservative Anabaptists have made it out to be. I also believe we would do well to look at how our interpretation of this passage has affected women and their place in the church. This idea that women are inferior to men in some way is far from biblical. We need more conservative Anabaptists to dig into this issue and pursue mutual love and mutual submission as it relates to marriage. I don’t yet know if I agree with how Peppiatt reached her conclusions, but I do recommend this book to anyone who is wrestling with the topic of head covering. Honestly, even if you’re not, I’d still recommend it. Again, we would do well to examine our interpretation of this text and how we got there, considering if we’ve done it well or not.
November 30, 2022
‘Unveiling Paul’s Women’ (what a great title) is an attempt to provide a fresh perspective on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Peppiatt’s book is well-written and easy to read, coming in at a featherweight 106 pages.
This accessibility, along with its foreword from Scot McKnight, means that her interpretation has the potential to gain traction quickly. If for no other reason than this, I think its content will need to be dealt with by anyone with a stake in the veiling conversation (looking at you, Mennonites.)
I’ll start with what I appreciated about the book:
- Peppiatt convincingly rejects the view that Paul argued for head veilings based on the surrounding culture alone. She shows that the argument in the passage is theological and (ostensibly at least) based in creation order, and therefore throwing this passage out as a culturally-bound command will not do.
- Her novel view is at least consistent with several parts of the passage: (1) the Greek preposition anti in verse 15 (‘her hair is given for a covering) often means something like ‘instead of’; (2) the somewhat vague comment in verse 16 that “we have no such custom,” and (most importantly) (3) the fact that Paul could seem to be backtracking between verses 7-10 and 11-12.
To summarize, her argument is that verses 4-5 and then 7-10 are not Paul’s words, but that he is quoting from the Corinthians (as he does in 6:1, 7:1, and a few other places in this letter). The result of this reading is that Paul is correcting the Corinthians — he’s telling them not to veil their women! And although I enjoyed reading it, I finished the book unconvinced by her arguments.
Three main flaws stood out as most glaring:
1. Peppiatt has little to no linguistic evidence for the “you say/I say” breaks she wants to insert. For the vv. 4-6 break, there are no discourse markers proposed to indicate the change of voice. She’s correct that Paul uses the “you say/I say” form called diatribe elsewhere, and even that he doesn’t always introduce a quote explicitly like he does in 6:1 and 7:1 (6:13 and 8:8 are two times he doesn’t), but she ignores how Paul’s “I want you to understand” in 11:2 sets the context and the implications that has for the discourse. There is not so much as a “but” to support her insertion of “you say/I say” around vv. 4-5. For the 7-10 ‘quote,’ she asserts that the Greek plen ‘nevertheless’ in v. 11 is “stronger” than it’s typically translated and indicates a contradicting argument, but she provides no support for this claim, nor does she address the dozens of uses of plen in the New Testament, only one of which (Mt. 26:44) could possibly support her claim that it signals a change in speaker (furthermore, Paul himself never uses it this way).
2. She tacitly admits this lack of linguistic evidence by proposing her main criterion for breaking up the passage: “when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or for Paul’s own views.” There are at least two problems with this. First, she doesn’t show that it contradicts the immediate context. Second, she ignores similar passages written by Paul in order to make the claim that this passage contradicts Paul! This question-begging left me genuinely bewildered. Perhaps she doesn’t believe in the Pauline authorship of say, 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Or perhaps she thinks that it has been answered satisfactorily by other egalitarians. But to not even mention it while claiming – over and over – that 1 Co. 11 “doesn’t sound like Paul” is either an incredible oversight or simply disingenuous.
3. She doesn’t address the historical theology of this passage, namely that no post-apostolic writer (many of whom spoke Greek as a native language) understood the passage in this way. It’s one thing to restore forgotten doctrine after nearly two millennia – ‘semper reformanda’ right?; it’s another thing to claim an interpretation so esoteric that no one we know of ever ‘got it’ before.
Peppiatt makes some good points. Her book should promote thinking about what Paul means by “image” and “glory,” and that woman is the “glory of man,” (what she claims is the “plain reading,” that it’s a Corinthian argument that women aren’t the image of God, was by no means plain to me). I think her work will need to be interacted with by serious scholars, if only for its potential popularity.
But if this is the best argument to be made against the traditional head-covering view, “Paul’s women” would be justified in remaining confidently veiled.
This accessibility, along with its foreword from Scot McKnight, means that her interpretation has the potential to gain traction quickly. If for no other reason than this, I think its content will need to be dealt with by anyone with a stake in the veiling conversation (looking at you, Mennonites.)
I’ll start with what I appreciated about the book:
- Peppiatt convincingly rejects the view that Paul argued for head veilings based on the surrounding culture alone. She shows that the argument in the passage is theological and (ostensibly at least) based in creation order, and therefore throwing this passage out as a culturally-bound command will not do.
- Her novel view is at least consistent with several parts of the passage: (1) the Greek preposition anti in verse 15 (‘her hair is given for a covering) often means something like ‘instead of’; (2) the somewhat vague comment in verse 16 that “we have no such custom,” and (most importantly) (3) the fact that Paul could seem to be backtracking between verses 7-10 and 11-12.
To summarize, her argument is that verses 4-5 and then 7-10 are not Paul’s words, but that he is quoting from the Corinthians (as he does in 6:1, 7:1, and a few other places in this letter). The result of this reading is that Paul is correcting the Corinthians — he’s telling them not to veil their women! And although I enjoyed reading it, I finished the book unconvinced by her arguments.
Three main flaws stood out as most glaring:
1. Peppiatt has little to no linguistic evidence for the “you say/I say” breaks she wants to insert. For the vv. 4-6 break, there are no discourse markers proposed to indicate the change of voice. She’s correct that Paul uses the “you say/I say” form called diatribe elsewhere, and even that he doesn’t always introduce a quote explicitly like he does in 6:1 and 7:1 (6:13 and 8:8 are two times he doesn’t), but she ignores how Paul’s “I want you to understand” in 11:2 sets the context and the implications that has for the discourse. There is not so much as a “but” to support her insertion of “you say/I say” around vv. 4-5. For the 7-10 ‘quote,’ she asserts that the Greek plen ‘nevertheless’ in v. 11 is “stronger” than it’s typically translated and indicates a contradicting argument, but she provides no support for this claim, nor does she address the dozens of uses of plen in the New Testament, only one of which (Mt. 26:44) could possibly support her claim that it signals a change in speaker (furthermore, Paul himself never uses it this way).
2. She tacitly admits this lack of linguistic evidence by proposing her main criterion for breaking up the passage: “when any statement stands in marked contrast either with the immediate context or for Paul’s own views.” There are at least two problems with this. First, she doesn’t show that it contradicts the immediate context. Second, she ignores similar passages written by Paul in order to make the claim that this passage contradicts Paul! This question-begging left me genuinely bewildered. Perhaps she doesn’t believe in the Pauline authorship of say, 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Or perhaps she thinks that it has been answered satisfactorily by other egalitarians. But to not even mention it while claiming – over and over – that 1 Co. 11 “doesn’t sound like Paul” is either an incredible oversight or simply disingenuous.
3. She doesn’t address the historical theology of this passage, namely that no post-apostolic writer (many of whom spoke Greek as a native language) understood the passage in this way. It’s one thing to restore forgotten doctrine after nearly two millennia – ‘semper reformanda’ right?; it’s another thing to claim an interpretation so esoteric that no one we know of ever ‘got it’ before.
Peppiatt makes some good points. Her book should promote thinking about what Paul means by “image” and “glory,” and that woman is the “glory of man,” (what she claims is the “plain reading,” that it’s a Corinthian argument that women aren’t the image of God, was by no means plain to me). I think her work will need to be interacted with by serious scholars, if only for its potential popularity.
But if this is the best argument to be made against the traditional head-covering view, “Paul’s women” would be justified in remaining confidently veiled.
September 25, 2021
Very thought-provoking exploration of a complex passage. Worth the read. For conservative Mennos, it would be worth doing some critical reflection on our theology of head coverings and what our justifications are for the practice along with the implications of those justifications.
December 8, 2021
I still have a lot of questions after reading this book, but I have so much respect for the careful scholarship, thoroughness, and generous approach Lucy takes. I definitely recommend the book.
May 16, 2025
Such a short and easy to read book. I can't help but recommend it if you find that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 doesn't like up to you.
The structure of the book is beautiful as well laying out the idea immediately and finishing the argument in the first half, and simply considering other options if she's incorrect and why she finds fault in them.
Has she solved it? read it for yourself and decide! I think the case is solid, and it's a very compelling argument.
generally no complaints about tone quality or pace. Again it's a very short book I could have finished in a day if I really wanted to.
I might have to read her previous book which goes more in depth into the whole topic not just this one passage!
The structure of the book is beautiful as well laying out the idea immediately and finishing the argument in the first half, and simply considering other options if she's incorrect and why she finds fault in them.
Has she solved it? read it for yourself and decide! I think the case is solid, and it's a very compelling argument.
generally no complaints about tone quality or pace. Again it's a very short book I could have finished in a day if I really wanted to.
I might have to read her previous book which goes more in depth into the whole topic not just this one passage!
July 23, 2024
Agréablement surprise par cette lecture commencée sur un coup de tête.
Je ne sais pas si Peppiatt a raison (partiellement? sur toute la ligne?) mais n’empêche que son livre est excellent et s’agit d’une des explications de 1 Corinthiens 11.2-16 les plus convaincantes que j’ai lu jusqu’à présent.
J’aimerais lire son autre livre qui va plus en profondeur dans son analyse d’exégèse, question de vérifier ses dires.
J’en veut plus des livres comme ça :
- respectueux des positions contraires, qui ne rabaisse pas les autres pour s’élever, se concentre que sur son argumentation
- biblique (une interprétation suivant de près le texte en considérant de multiples angles et leurs conclusions logiques, avec une haute estime de l’autorité de la Parole),
- humble (ne se vantant pas, expliquant les difficultés, soulignant la possibilité de se tromper),
- innovant (qui ose trouver des solutions créatives qui soutiennent et mettent en valeur le texte biblique, qui ose même corriger des erreurs commises dans son « propre camp »)
- incluant une brève histoire de l’auteur et de ses convictions de base (aucune lecture biblique n’est exempt de biais socio culturel ou d’engagements théologique).
Je ne sais pas si Peppiatt a raison (partiellement? sur toute la ligne?) mais n’empêche que son livre est excellent et s’agit d’une des explications de 1 Corinthiens 11.2-16 les plus convaincantes que j’ai lu jusqu’à présent.
J’aimerais lire son autre livre qui va plus en profondeur dans son analyse d’exégèse, question de vérifier ses dires.
J’en veut plus des livres comme ça :
- respectueux des positions contraires, qui ne rabaisse pas les autres pour s’élever, se concentre que sur son argumentation
- biblique (une interprétation suivant de près le texte en considérant de multiples angles et leurs conclusions logiques, avec une haute estime de l’autorité de la Parole),
- humble (ne se vantant pas, expliquant les difficultés, soulignant la possibilité de se tromper),
- innovant (qui ose trouver des solutions créatives qui soutiennent et mettent en valeur le texte biblique, qui ose même corriger des erreurs commises dans son « propre camp »)
- incluant une brève histoire de l’auteur et de ses convictions de base (aucune lecture biblique n’est exempt de biais socio culturel ou d’engagements théologique).
January 11, 2022
Peppiatt makes a convincing case in under 100 pages, mostly by sticking to the text. Her big idea is that in 1 Cor. 11:2-16, Paul is following a quotation-refutation rhetorical style in which he alternates between addressing the Corinthian views that follow what he actually taught them, and the views they espouse that are distortions of his teaching. Thus the passage follows a kind of ABABA pattern.
A: Paul praises the Corinthians for the teachings they are still doing well in.
B: Paul summarises the first Corinthian distortion: that women who pray and prophesy without a veil should be shorn as a punishment.
A: Paul further elaborates and clarifies the current Corinthian position.
B: Paul addresses a second distortion: that women are subservient to men.
A: Finally, in the last part of the passage (vv 11-16), Paul corrects both of the distortions and teaches that women are okay to wear their hair long and uncovered and also that women and men are equal and interdependent.
I want to read critical reviews of the book but she has me at least somewhat convinced.
A: Paul praises the Corinthians for the teachings they are still doing well in.
B: Paul summarises the first Corinthian distortion: that women who pray and prophesy without a veil should be shorn as a punishment.
A: Paul further elaborates and clarifies the current Corinthian position.
B: Paul addresses a second distortion: that women are subservient to men.
A: Finally, in the last part of the passage (vv 11-16), Paul corrects both of the distortions and teaches that women are okay to wear their hair long and uncovered and also that women and men are equal and interdependent.
I want to read critical reviews of the book but she has me at least somewhat convinced.
May 14, 2018
Very thoughtful treatment of complex passages. It was work for me to read it but well worth it.
November 15, 2021
This is a very interesting take on a difficult passage.
I found the first half of the book to be compelling. The use of rhetoric explaining Peppiatts ideas around head coverings.
I did, however, get lost in the second half feeling some of her pieces around headship took some leaps that I just couldn't see.
Worth a read if you have or are struggling with/looking at this passage.
I found the first half of the book to be compelling. The use of rhetoric explaining Peppiatts ideas around head coverings.
I did, however, get lost in the second half feeling some of her pieces around headship took some leaps that I just couldn't see.
Worth a read if you have or are struggling with/looking at this passage.
January 15, 2023
Lucy's exploration of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is the first interpretation of this passage I have heard that actually makes complete sense. Highly recommend reading this short book!
March 5, 2020
This is a very good investigation into 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, which has proven to be one of the most complicated passages of the New Testament. Had I not read material previously that has covered similar ground, my own personal ranking would be much higher; as an introduction to the challenges of exegeting this passage, I'd give it a 4/5. The book is relatively short so it is not daunting and can thus have a wide readership.
November 20, 2023
I encourage you to immediately buy this book.
Lucy Peppiatt refers to this as a study guide, and it is every bit of that. Not only does she look thoroughly at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in grammatical detail, in the context of the passage, in the context of the book, in the context of Pauline letters and scholarship, and in the context of the Bible, but she invites readers to do the same.
She begins by asking readers to work their way through the passage and write down any and all questions that arise. She invites readers to do the work of imagining, thinking, and wrestling through this passage. She names the issues of the passage and eliminates "answers" which are not offered in the text itself. Dr. Peppiatt clears away the clutter so that as a reader, you are left with the choice of women asked/forced to wear head coverings for theological reasons, or women freed from wearing head coverings for theological reasons. "Cultural" reasons are taken off the table, because the passage offers no cultural reasons, but does offer theological reasons.
She offers a clear, convincing way to read this difficult passage which fits the pattern agreed upon by scholars for reading other parts of 1 Corinthians, and in doing so, she offers a cohesive picture of Paul as a champion of women. Her theological work is faithful to the Gospel presented by Paul in this letter and his other letters, and so I commend this book with enthusiastic vigor!
Lucy Peppiatt refers to this as a study guide, and it is every bit of that. Not only does she look thoroughly at 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 in grammatical detail, in the context of the passage, in the context of the book, in the context of Pauline letters and scholarship, and in the context of the Bible, but she invites readers to do the same.
She begins by asking readers to work their way through the passage and write down any and all questions that arise. She invites readers to do the work of imagining, thinking, and wrestling through this passage. She names the issues of the passage and eliminates "answers" which are not offered in the text itself. Dr. Peppiatt clears away the clutter so that as a reader, you are left with the choice of women asked/forced to wear head coverings for theological reasons, or women freed from wearing head coverings for theological reasons. "Cultural" reasons are taken off the table, because the passage offers no cultural reasons, but does offer theological reasons.
She offers a clear, convincing way to read this difficult passage which fits the pattern agreed upon by scholars for reading other parts of 1 Corinthians, and in doing so, she offers a cohesive picture of Paul as a champion of women. Her theological work is faithful to the Gospel presented by Paul in this letter and his other letters, and so I commend this book with enthusiastic vigor!
February 13, 2022
Never really studied deeper into 1 Corinthians 11. I’ve always just taken it for face value without studying the words individually. This author provided some deeper insight and lingering questions. I love how she is able to show how there are two ways of reading this passage, either as Paul’s thoughts entirely or as if he is writing his responses to a letter he received back from the Corinthians. Almost like, “you say xyz” and “I say that is not right, it is this way xyz.” Easy read and thought provoking.
October 19, 2022
Wow! Just wow! This compact little book is so loaded, I feel like reading it again. She makes a very compelling and quite convincing argument that the first half of 1 Cor 11 has been grossly misunderstood for years. Her approach clears away the internal inconsistencies and puzzling language that I have noticed and struggled with myself for my whole life as a Bible teacher. I have yet to tease out in my mind all the potential implications, but I certainly think she’s nailed it here!
July 6, 2019
Most Coherent position on 1Cor 11
By essentially using “quotation-refutation” the author has finally presented a theological position that makes sense. Not only is the language itself confusing, but the seeming contradictory instructions make sense as Paul presenting the Corinthians distortion vs Paul’s actual intent to liberate.
By essentially using “quotation-refutation” the author has finally presented a theological position that makes sense. Not only is the language itself confusing, but the seeming contradictory instructions make sense as Paul presenting the Corinthians distortion vs Paul’s actual intent to liberate.
January 23, 2023
Incredibly helpful book on the confusing passage in 1 Corinthians 11, which covers male headship, hierarchical systems in the church, and head coverings. I appreciated the easy to follow breakdown of each point as the author built her case and presented her conclusions. A short read that makes so much sense!
February 17, 2018
Excellent explanation
I never thought Paul was anti woman. Just there was something else going on and this book definitely shows what was going on. Read it and learn😍
I never thought Paul was anti woman. Just there was something else going on and this book definitely shows what was going on. Read it and learn😍
October 11, 2018
Very clearly and carefully leading you through difficult passage from Paul's writings about women. The texts usually used to keep women out of leadership/ordination. Excellent read.
February 1, 2019
Wow... Turning my thinking on its head... Thank you!
September 12, 2019
Well written well reasoned original thinking.
February 19, 2021
Very coherent reading of the passage. Makes sense of a confusing text that seems to contradict a wider Pauline view on women.
July 15, 2024
This thorough but accessible book makes a compelling argument: Paul is not demanding that women be veiled in 1 Cor 11:2-16, but responding to this demand.
March 26, 2025
Intriguing perspective on a complex passage. I found a few things to be far reaches, and she jumped around in places, but overall always good to read different opinions.
April 10, 2025
This book lays out a very clear argument that makes Paul make sense!
December 23, 2023
A fascinating read and a compelling perspective on a confusing passage of scripture. The author also wrote a longer book on the same topic more intended for scholars -- this book nonetheless felt very thorough to me, readable, and even devotionally oriented as she encourages the reader to open the Bible and begin from their own questions on reading the passage.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews