What do you think?
Rate this book
Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts
IVP Readers' Choice Award Does God call women to serve as equal partners in marriage and as leaders in the church? The answer to this straightforward question is deeply contested. Into the fray, Lucy Peppiatt offers her work on interpretation of the Bible and Christian practice. With careful exegetical work, Peppiatt considers relevant passages in Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter, 1 Timothy, and 1 Corinthians. There she finds a story of God releasing women alongside men into all forms of ministry, leadership, work, and service on the basis of character and gifting, rather than biological sex. Those who see the overturning of male-dominated hierarchy in the Scriptures, she argues, are truly rediscovering an ancient message―a message distorted by those who assumed that a patriarchal world, which they sometimes saw reflected in the Bible, was the one God had ordained.
170 pages, Paperback
Published August 6, 2019
110 people are currently reading
1050 people want to read
About the author
Lucy Peppiatt
13 books57 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 - 30 of 73 reviews
May 24, 2021
Peppiat delivers what the subtitle claims -- a fresh perspective on disputed texts. She argues that the two key passages in 1 Corinthians that appear to prohibit women teaching publicly in worship are in fact Paul's quotation of his interlocutors, whose perspective is unbiblical. As for 1 Tim 2, she reads it along with other scholars as a response to the cult of Artemis in Ephesus, as guidelines specific to that context. Peppiat also shows how the truly revolutionary call in Ephesians 5 for the first century is not for wives to submit (which was expected in that time) but rather for husbands to give up their sexual freedom and instead commit to serving their families and honoring their wives.
I read this book with a group of Canadian Christian women who wanted to explore the topic. We found repeatedly that Peppiat's description of how things are in conservative churches did not match these women's experience. Often they struggled to understand who she was addressing; the views of her implied audience seemed extreme. Canada is unusual in that conservative churches tend to allow women to teach, preach, and lead worship at a much higher rate than their counterparts (even in the same denomination) in the US. As a case in point, Prairie College in Alberta, where I've taught Old Testament for the past 4 years has had women teaching Bible since 1923. I've just accepted a post teaching Old Testament at Biola University in California, which was founded in 1913 as part of the same Bible College movement, and I'll be the first woman in history to teach OT there. So while Peppiatt offers a needed corrective to extreme forms of complementarianism in the States, it may resonate less in Canada (or at least in Alberta). No matter where you find yourself on the spectrum of views on this issue, Peppiat offers food for thought.
I read this book with a group of Canadian Christian women who wanted to explore the topic. We found repeatedly that Peppiat's description of how things are in conservative churches did not match these women's experience. Often they struggled to understand who she was addressing; the views of her implied audience seemed extreme. Canada is unusual in that conservative churches tend to allow women to teach, preach, and lead worship at a much higher rate than their counterparts (even in the same denomination) in the US. As a case in point, Prairie College in Alberta, where I've taught Old Testament for the past 4 years has had women teaching Bible since 1923. I've just accepted a post teaching Old Testament at Biola University in California, which was founded in 1913 as part of the same Bible College movement, and I'll be the first woman in history to teach OT there. So while Peppiatt offers a needed corrective to extreme forms of complementarianism in the States, it may resonate less in Canada (or at least in Alberta). No matter where you find yourself on the spectrum of views on this issue, Peppiat offers food for thought.
January 11, 2024
Overall, a great overview of the exegetical case for egalitarianism/mutualism as opposed to complementarianism/hierarchichalism.
It always frustrates and saddens me when people dismiss the mutualism perspective and attempt to shut down the conversation by claiming that “the Bible is clear” on this topic – because, in actuality, what they mean is that “this specific twentieth or twenty-first century English translation of a first millennium Greek or Hebrew text is ‘clear’ in the sense that I and my chosen religious tradition have assigned a specific meaning to it based on the at-times questionable translational choices made by its creators, and we’ve decided that any other translational choices could not possibly be valid, let alone objectively closer to the original meaning and intent of the text.”
This breach of exegetical integrity troubles me for several reasons. Why do we not want to continually subject our translation of scripture to the most rigorous academic standards? Are we not truly interested in discovering (insofar as we can) what the Bible actually says? Do we believe, in our pitiful arrogance, that our initial impressions must always be accurate and that there is no way that further revelation could correct us? Moreover, those who make this “the Bible is clear” argument typically neglect to mention that they do not, themselves, believe it. I’ve never met someone who lives out the “clear” injunctions of Matthew 5:29-30, and I’ve rarely encountered complementarian women who believe that the “clear” commandments of 1 Timothy 2:9 apply to them (though they fight tooth and nail for their interpretation of the eleventh through fourteenth verses). It seems, then, that we are allowed to recognize and legitimize the influence of varying literary genres and cultural contexts in certain areas of scripture, but not in others. It seems, in other words, that cherry picking is permissible – just not when it comes to a complementarian’s pet verses.
There is, of course, nuance to this discussion. I am not saying that all (or even most) scriptural commandments are “open to interpretation” in the sense of being “optional” or “culturally specific” as opposed to imperative and universally applicable. I am saying that we need consistency and integrity in our exegetical endeavors, and that we need to understand the limitation of human understanding and accept that maybe – *gasp* – the Holy Spirit is still active and is still revealing truth to us.
And, at the bare minimum, WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO ADMIT WHEN WE HAVE BEEN MISTRANSLATING A COMMANDMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. For crying out loud.
That’s what makes work like Peppiatt’s and others’ so invaluable. Because, objectively, it does matter that “deacon” is a more appropriate translation of diakonos than “servant” in Romans 16:1-2. It does matter that English translations insert masculine pronouns into the discussion of bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9 when there is no such gender-specific language in the original Greek. It does matter that, in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the use of the word hesychia exhorts women to be “restful” when learning, not “silent”. It does matter that the verb tense of epitrepo in verse 12 indicates that Paul is communicating “I am not [currently] allowing,” not necessarily “I do not [ever] permit”. It does matter that “head” or “one in authority” are by no means the only or even the most likely meanings of kephale as used in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Et cetera.
Besides the technical textual exegesis she offers, I appreciate that Peppiatt discusses the role of confirmation bias and human error in all theological and academic studies. We all approach scripture from a particular perspective and view it through a specific lens – we all have to grapple with seemingly contradictory statements and make a good-faith effort to reconcile them in a way that makes coherent sense in light of the rest of scripture and what we know of God’s nature. Peppiatt also addresses the issues with eternal functional subordination theology and points out that trinitarian hierarchy has traditionally been rejected as heresy since Nicaea, which is always an important factor to consider in the mutualist/hierarchichalist debate.
I did find her exhortatative sections far less successful than her educational ones, but perhaps that’s because I already feel that the extra-biblical arguments for mutualism and against hierarchichalism are so blatantly obvious that it’s a waste of time to enumerate them in this context because surely everyone must already be able to see them. (I know, I know, I’m naïve. What can I say? Cock-eyed optimist, and all that.) I also would have preferred a bit more on Ephesians 5 from a strictly linguistic perspective, since that’s such a significant passage in this debate, but there are plenty of other, more in-depth analyses of that passage to be found elsewhere. (Speaking of which, Peppiatt is wonderful about referring her readers to additional materials for further study, and I’m grateful for that.)
Definitely recommended.
It always frustrates and saddens me when people dismiss the mutualism perspective and attempt to shut down the conversation by claiming that “the Bible is clear” on this topic – because, in actuality, what they mean is that “this specific twentieth or twenty-first century English translation of a first millennium Greek or Hebrew text is ‘clear’ in the sense that I and my chosen religious tradition have assigned a specific meaning to it based on the at-times questionable translational choices made by its creators, and we’ve decided that any other translational choices could not possibly be valid, let alone objectively closer to the original meaning and intent of the text.”
This breach of exegetical integrity troubles me for several reasons. Why do we not want to continually subject our translation of scripture to the most rigorous academic standards? Are we not truly interested in discovering (insofar as we can) what the Bible actually says? Do we believe, in our pitiful arrogance, that our initial impressions must always be accurate and that there is no way that further revelation could correct us? Moreover, those who make this “the Bible is clear” argument typically neglect to mention that they do not, themselves, believe it. I’ve never met someone who lives out the “clear” injunctions of Matthew 5:29-30, and I’ve rarely encountered complementarian women who believe that the “clear” commandments of 1 Timothy 2:9 apply to them (though they fight tooth and nail for their interpretation of the eleventh through fourteenth verses). It seems, then, that we are allowed to recognize and legitimize the influence of varying literary genres and cultural contexts in certain areas of scripture, but not in others. It seems, in other words, that cherry picking is permissible – just not when it comes to a complementarian’s pet verses.
There is, of course, nuance to this discussion. I am not saying that all (or even most) scriptural commandments are “open to interpretation” in the sense of being “optional” or “culturally specific” as opposed to imperative and universally applicable. I am saying that we need consistency and integrity in our exegetical endeavors, and that we need to understand the limitation of human understanding and accept that maybe – *gasp* – the Holy Spirit is still active and is still revealing truth to us.
And, at the bare minimum, WE NEED TO BE WILLING TO ADMIT WHEN WE HAVE BEEN MISTRANSLATING A COMMANDMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. For crying out loud.
That’s what makes work like Peppiatt’s and others’ so invaluable. Because, objectively, it does matter that “deacon” is a more appropriate translation of diakonos than “servant” in Romans 16:1-2. It does matter that English translations insert masculine pronouns into the discussion of bishops and deacons in 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9 when there is no such gender-specific language in the original Greek. It does matter that, in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the use of the word hesychia exhorts women to be “restful” when learning, not “silent”. It does matter that the verb tense of epitrepo in verse 12 indicates that Paul is communicating “I am not [currently] allowing,” not necessarily “I do not [ever] permit”. It does matter that “head” or “one in authority” are by no means the only or even the most likely meanings of kephale as used in 1 Corinthians 11:3. Et cetera.
Besides the technical textual exegesis she offers, I appreciate that Peppiatt discusses the role of confirmation bias and human error in all theological and academic studies. We all approach scripture from a particular perspective and view it through a specific lens – we all have to grapple with seemingly contradictory statements and make a good-faith effort to reconcile them in a way that makes coherent sense in light of the rest of scripture and what we know of God’s nature. Peppiatt also addresses the issues with eternal functional subordination theology and points out that trinitarian hierarchy has traditionally been rejected as heresy since Nicaea, which is always an important factor to consider in the mutualist/hierarchichalist debate.
I did find her exhortatative sections far less successful than her educational ones, but perhaps that’s because I already feel that the extra-biblical arguments for mutualism and against hierarchichalism are so blatantly obvious that it’s a waste of time to enumerate them in this context because surely everyone must already be able to see them. (I know, I know, I’m naïve. What can I say? Cock-eyed optimist, and all that.) I also would have preferred a bit more on Ephesians 5 from a strictly linguistic perspective, since that’s such a significant passage in this debate, but there are plenty of other, more in-depth analyses of that passage to be found elsewhere. (Speaking of which, Peppiatt is wonderful about referring her readers to additional materials for further study, and I’m grateful for that.)
Definitely recommended.
January 23, 2023
I am really enjoying reading Lucy's books. Her interpretations of difficult passages of Scripture make so much sense and seem so much more logical than the more convoluted interpretations that leave holes in the fabric of reasoning. I especially appreciated Lucy's exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 in this book. It is the first interpretation of this passage I have ever heard that just makes complete sense! She presents the context in such a clear, understandable way. Without it, other interpretations really do the passage (and the church) a disservice. I am so glad I read this book. Whole-heartedly recommend!
May 5, 2021
In The Making of Biblical Womanhood, Beth Allison Barr cites Peppiatt frequently. I must admit, I had my doubts about "fresh" perspectives on disputed texts about women in the Bible (notably, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, and 1 Timothy 2). Happily, Peppiatt did show me perspectives on disputed texts so ancient that they are fresh once more.
The final chapter, on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, was a revelation. Peppiatt collects the scholarship of Gary Hoag and Sandra Glahn, expertly examining the influence of the Artemis cult in Ephesus that still had its fingers in Timothy's flock. To those who find no connection between 1 Timothy and the Artemis cult, I refer them to Acts 19:34, in which the author of this pastoral epistle listened to Ephesians chant, in unison, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" for about two hours. Paul had a two-hour-long reason to write a specific injunction against cultic worship of Artemis in his letter to the Ephesians. While the whole book is strong, this chapter in particular was really helpful.
I didn't find this book overly academic, though in places Peppiatt discusses original languages and translation disputes. Those passages are crucial to her argument, and in the hands of a different scholar, they could have been much longer. I appreciated that she worked through these weeds by citing several different English translations rather than expecting a knowledge of biblical languages in her audience.
Recommended to those seeking a fresh perspective, especially to anyone who's a fan of ~original context~ and the early church.
The final chapter, on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, was a revelation. Peppiatt collects the scholarship of Gary Hoag and Sandra Glahn, expertly examining the influence of the Artemis cult in Ephesus that still had its fingers in Timothy's flock. To those who find no connection between 1 Timothy and the Artemis cult, I refer them to Acts 19:34, in which the author of this pastoral epistle listened to Ephesians chant, in unison, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" for about two hours. Paul had a two-hour-long reason to write a specific injunction against cultic worship of Artemis in his letter to the Ephesians. While the whole book is strong, this chapter in particular was really helpful.
I didn't find this book overly academic, though in places Peppiatt discusses original languages and translation disputes. Those passages are crucial to her argument, and in the hands of a different scholar, they could have been much longer. I appreciated that she worked through these weeds by citing several different English translations rather than expecting a knowledge of biblical languages in her audience.
Recommended to those seeking a fresh perspective, especially to anyone who's a fan of ~original context~ and the early church.
August 6, 2019
If you've got questions about what the Bible says about women in leadership or if you *think* you understand everything the Bible says about women in leadership, you should grab a copy of this book. Peppiatt's thorough and insightful work explores the complexities of Pauline doctrine without belittling those who disagree with her scholarship. She does not avoid the ambiguities or pretend they don't exist. I found the book overly academic in certain areas but appreciate her work and her desire to help readers gain deeper insight.
August 3, 2019
Rediscovering Scripture's Vision For Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts by Lucy Peppiatt is a book that, as the title indicates, attempts to look at Scriptures teachings of God's plan for women.
As you may have guessed, these "fresh" perspectives ultimately attempt to lead the reader to think that Christian women do not need to keep silent in the church, can pastor churches, don't need to submit to their husbands…etc. I have read some of it outloud to many of my sisters (I have seven sisters) and they were all joining me in criticizing the claims of this book.
Let me deal with some of her claims. First, her view of 1 Corinthians 11. I find part of her introduction to her interpretation ironic: "My own research has led me to study these verses in detail and to discover that the more obvious meaning of the text causes consternation and embarrassment among many, and even causes others to question Paul's understanding here." So, of course the obvious reading can't be right if people are dismayed and embarrassed about it? Anyway, she says that some believe these verses tell us that males are in the image and glory of God more than women, which she says cannot be true since Genesis tells us that both are said to be in the image of God. This can be answered very simply: One of my sisters pointed out that it only says that woman is the "glory of man" it doesn't say that she is his image and thus does not discount her still being the image of God.
Anyway, After dealing with the problems she has with the "hierchialist view" the author asks, "Is it possible to salvage a better meaning out of these verses?" Her "better meaning" is quite shocking to me. She thinks that chunks of verses are just Paul repeating erroneous beliefs that the Corinthians held about man/woman relationships and that he's correcting those. She doesn't give an exegetical reason, just gives you an edited (with italics and other punctuation) quotation of this section of Paul's letter to demonstrate how, in her view, it should be read. And then she goes on to just assume you accepted that explanation. No exegetical basis other than she thinks that Paul couldn't be saying what these texts, obviously, say. She has a book written on 1 Corinthians 11, so perhaps she gets more detailed in that, but it certainly warrants a fuller explanation in this book.
Another one of her arguments is (as I understood her to be saying) that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity. Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same 'substance', all one God, then there can't be such a thing as 'authority' or subordination in the Trinity and therefore one shouldn't think that Christ set an example of submission that could be followed by wives. I'll give one example: "It is true that Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15 that at the end of time, God will be 'all in all,' and speaks of Christ being made subject to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28. However, this is also in the context of the idea that all authority in Heaven and earth has been handed over to the son…Christ emerges triumphant at the end of time, having put everything under his feet. This powerful picture of Jesus Christ is not quite the loving, courageous submission that is referred to in a few verses of Philippians 2 in relation to the incarnation….." She seems to think that this means that God the Father is also put under Christ's feet! Excuse me? This does not mean that the Father then submits to the Son.
Texts like 1 Peter 3:1-7, are negated because, though Peter does tell wives to submit to their husbands, all Christians are supposed to submit to each other. So that, of course, cancels out any command to wives to submit to their husbands. Her reasoning is absurd! Read just a few verses here:
"For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…"(1Pe 3:5-6 ESV)
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…."(Eph 5:22ESV)
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
(Eph 5:24 ESV)
These texts are very clear, very specific commands to wives that they are specifically to submit to, not their fathers or mothers, not their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are to submit to their husbands in particular and look on him as their authority:
Peppiatt makes the claim that if men and women don't have the same earthly roles then there is "literally nothing to show for the claim that she has been saved into coequality with a man." This is might sound strange, but, there being no males or females in Christ does not mean that there are no male or female Christians.
The Bible does not indicate that salvation erases lineage or ethnicity (Paul emphasized in Romans 9-12 that God has a special plan to save Israel, an ethnic people, sometime in the future),and it does not indicate that our sex is erased at salvation. There being no male, female, Jew, Gentile, etc… in Christ simply means that we are all saved the same way: by the grace of God through the faith that He gives us. We are not saved because of our works, because of our sex, nor are we saved because of our societal position or ethnicity. If you take it the way Peppiatt reads it, then we'd also have to assume that there are no children, parents, bosses, no political governors or any leaders in Christ. "Children obey your parents" would be crazy because parents and children don't exist in Christ and children should not be required to submit to their brothers and sisters in Christ. I’m talking absurdly here, I know, but this is how I see her reasoning playing out if brought to its logical conclusion.
The Bible NEVER indicates that everything physical about us is erased at our salvation, rather it seems to do just the opposite and shows us how we can utilize our God-ordained physical position for the Lord. Remember, we are told by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians that " we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."(Eph 2:10). Why do we seem to think that these "good works" are all going to be exactly the same for everyone? Why do we think that it wouldn't be "fair" if God gives particular groups of people particular works? Actually, wouldn't that be rather special? To think that God put me in a specific physical circumstance and has given me particular good works to do in that circumstance!
God HAS given particular people groups special works to do. There are particular good works for Men, Women, Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Children, Slaves, Masters, Older Women, Pastors, elders, citizens…etc. and good works for everyone in general. Our particular roles/good works may be hard, and our general good works are hard too, but that's where faith comes in, where dying to self comes in, where we take up our particular cross and follow our Lord.
Remember what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12? I'll quote some of it: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body…."(1Co 12:12-15) As a woman I might say, "Because I am not a man, I do not belong to the body" Or, "Because I must keep quiet and not pastor a congregation I am not a part of the body". Nope, I am still a part of the body even though I have a different role. Paul goes on: "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose."(1Co 12:17-18) We all are still unique in the body of Christ, with God ordained unique roles and positions.
Peppiatt's 'exegesis' seems to consist in implanting doubt in people's minds as to how understandable Scripture actually is. She really seems to desire to implant into our minds that what Scripture seems to be clearly, "obviously" saying might actually be obscure. She focuses in on individual words and demonstrates that they can have a variety of meanings, and therefore the meaning that is normally fixed upon by most Bible translators is not necessarily the right one. She does the same with texts and passages as a whole: The obvious meaning is not necessarily the right one. This really seems like a "Has God said?"(Genesis 3) scenario. Peppiatt's hermeneutic is dangerous. It can easily be utilized (and probably is used) by those who deny a literal six-day creation, those who view Christ as a mere man and not God incarnate, it could be used by children to justify their disobeying their parents, and could mess with salvation itself by lending to the proclaiming of "another Gospel" (Gal 1:8).
The author of this book has a very clear bias against the "obvious" meaning of Scripture texts that talk about women's roles in Christ. She says, "I encourage all Christian married couples to break away from and reject any expectation that the husband should occupy an authoritative role and the wife a submissive one…" Remember, the Apostle Paul indicates that the husband and wife relationship is a picture of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5), the church is supposed to submit to Christ. Christ does not submit to the church. We do not tell Him what to do, He tells us, We do not lead Him, He leads us. Husbands and wives mess up the picture when they do not follow their God given roles. Wives submitting to their husbands, in particular, is emphasized in the Scriptures and treated very seriously.
I'll sum this all up: In this book, Peppiatt is doing exactly the opposite of what the Scriptures say older women are to teach young wives, "train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."(Tit 2:4-5 ASV) Wives are given a particular duty by God: submission to their husbands. This duty is to be taken VERY seriously so as not to cause the Word of God to be blasphemed, or discredited.
I have particular instructions given to me as a single woman. I am not given the role of pastor or teacher of the congregation, I am to keep quiet and listen submissively. Might it be hard to do sometimes? Sure! But again, that's where faith comes in, and faith isn't usually easy. Listening submissively in church is one of the particular good works that Scripture CLEARLY tells me in particular, to do, therefore I know for sure that it's one of the particular works that God has "ordained" for me to "walk in". It's not demeaning, it is special, it gives me a special role in the body of Christ, a special work of submission I can do to glorify Him.
I received a free review copy of this book from Intervarsity Press. My review did not have to be favorable.
As you may have guessed, these "fresh" perspectives ultimately attempt to lead the reader to think that Christian women do not need to keep silent in the church, can pastor churches, don't need to submit to their husbands…etc. I have read some of it outloud to many of my sisters (I have seven sisters) and they were all joining me in criticizing the claims of this book.
Let me deal with some of her claims. First, her view of 1 Corinthians 11. I find part of her introduction to her interpretation ironic: "My own research has led me to study these verses in detail and to discover that the more obvious meaning of the text causes consternation and embarrassment among many, and even causes others to question Paul's understanding here." So, of course the obvious reading can't be right if people are dismayed and embarrassed about it? Anyway, she says that some believe these verses tell us that males are in the image and glory of God more than women, which she says cannot be true since Genesis tells us that both are said to be in the image of God. This can be answered very simply: One of my sisters pointed out that it only says that woman is the "glory of man" it doesn't say that she is his image and thus does not discount her still being the image of God.
Anyway, After dealing with the problems she has with the "hierchialist view" the author asks, "Is it possible to salvage a better meaning out of these verses?" Her "better meaning" is quite shocking to me. She thinks that chunks of verses are just Paul repeating erroneous beliefs that the Corinthians held about man/woman relationships and that he's correcting those. She doesn't give an exegetical reason, just gives you an edited (with italics and other punctuation) quotation of this section of Paul's letter to demonstrate how, in her view, it should be read. And then she goes on to just assume you accepted that explanation. No exegetical basis other than she thinks that Paul couldn't be saying what these texts, obviously, say. She has a book written on 1 Corinthians 11, so perhaps she gets more detailed in that, but it certainly warrants a fuller explanation in this book.
Another one of her arguments is (as I understood her to be saying) that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity. Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same 'substance', all one God, then there can't be such a thing as 'authority' or subordination in the Trinity and therefore one shouldn't think that Christ set an example of submission that could be followed by wives. I'll give one example: "It is true that Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15 that at the end of time, God will be 'all in all,' and speaks of Christ being made subject to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28. However, this is also in the context of the idea that all authority in Heaven and earth has been handed over to the son…Christ emerges triumphant at the end of time, having put everything under his feet. This powerful picture of Jesus Christ is not quite the loving, courageous submission that is referred to in a few verses of Philippians 2 in relation to the incarnation….." She seems to think that this means that God the Father is also put under Christ's feet! Excuse me? This does not mean that the Father then submits to the Son.
Texts like 1 Peter 3:1-7, are negated because, though Peter does tell wives to submit to their husbands, all Christians are supposed to submit to each other. So that, of course, cancels out any command to wives to submit to their husbands. Her reasoning is absurd! Read just a few verses here:
"For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…"(1Pe 3:5-6 ESV)
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…."(Eph 5:22ESV)
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
(Eph 5:24 ESV)
These texts are very clear, very specific commands to wives that they are specifically to submit to, not their fathers or mothers, not their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are to submit to their husbands in particular and look on him as their authority:
Peppiatt makes the claim that if men and women don't have the same earthly roles then there is "literally nothing to show for the claim that she has been saved into coequality with a man." This is might sound strange, but, there being no males or females in Christ does not mean that there are no male or female Christians.
The Bible does not indicate that salvation erases lineage or ethnicity (Paul emphasized in Romans 9-12 that God has a special plan to save Israel, an ethnic people, sometime in the future),and it does not indicate that our sex is erased at salvation. There being no male, female, Jew, Gentile, etc… in Christ simply means that we are all saved the same way: by the grace of God through the faith that He gives us. We are not saved because of our works, because of our sex, nor are we saved because of our societal position or ethnicity. If you take it the way Peppiatt reads it, then we'd also have to assume that there are no children, parents, bosses, no political governors or any leaders in Christ. "Children obey your parents" would be crazy because parents and children don't exist in Christ and children should not be required to submit to their brothers and sisters in Christ. I’m talking absurdly here, I know, but this is how I see her reasoning playing out if brought to its logical conclusion.
The Bible NEVER indicates that everything physical about us is erased at our salvation, rather it seems to do just the opposite and shows us how we can utilize our God-ordained physical position for the Lord. Remember, we are told by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians that " we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."(Eph 2:10). Why do we seem to think that these "good works" are all going to be exactly the same for everyone? Why do we think that it wouldn't be "fair" if God gives particular groups of people particular works? Actually, wouldn't that be rather special? To think that God put me in a specific physical circumstance and has given me particular good works to do in that circumstance!
God HAS given particular people groups special works to do. There are particular good works for Men, Women, Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Children, Slaves, Masters, Older Women, Pastors, elders, citizens…etc. and good works for everyone in general. Our particular roles/good works may be hard, and our general good works are hard too, but that's where faith comes in, where dying to self comes in, where we take up our particular cross and follow our Lord.
Remember what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12? I'll quote some of it: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body…."(1Co 12:12-15) As a woman I might say, "Because I am not a man, I do not belong to the body" Or, "Because I must keep quiet and not pastor a congregation I am not a part of the body". Nope, I am still a part of the body even though I have a different role. Paul goes on: "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose."(1Co 12:17-18) We all are still unique in the body of Christ, with God ordained unique roles and positions.
Peppiatt's 'exegesis' seems to consist in implanting doubt in people's minds as to how understandable Scripture actually is. She really seems to desire to implant into our minds that what Scripture seems to be clearly, "obviously" saying might actually be obscure. She focuses in on individual words and demonstrates that they can have a variety of meanings, and therefore the meaning that is normally fixed upon by most Bible translators is not necessarily the right one. She does the same with texts and passages as a whole: The obvious meaning is not necessarily the right one. This really seems like a "Has God said?"(Genesis 3) scenario. Peppiatt's hermeneutic is dangerous. It can easily be utilized (and probably is used) by those who deny a literal six-day creation, those who view Christ as a mere man and not God incarnate, it could be used by children to justify their disobeying their parents, and could mess with salvation itself by lending to the proclaiming of "another Gospel" (Gal 1:8).
The author of this book has a very clear bias against the "obvious" meaning of Scripture texts that talk about women's roles in Christ. She says, "I encourage all Christian married couples to break away from and reject any expectation that the husband should occupy an authoritative role and the wife a submissive one…" Remember, the Apostle Paul indicates that the husband and wife relationship is a picture of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5), the church is supposed to submit to Christ. Christ does not submit to the church. We do not tell Him what to do, He tells us, We do not lead Him, He leads us. Husbands and wives mess up the picture when they do not follow their God given roles. Wives submitting to their husbands, in particular, is emphasized in the Scriptures and treated very seriously.
I'll sum this all up: In this book, Peppiatt is doing exactly the opposite of what the Scriptures say older women are to teach young wives, "train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."(Tit 2:4-5 ASV) Wives are given a particular duty by God: submission to their husbands. This duty is to be taken VERY seriously so as not to cause the Word of God to be blasphemed, or discredited.
I have particular instructions given to me as a single woman. I am not given the role of pastor or teacher of the congregation, I am to keep quiet and listen submissively. Might it be hard to do sometimes? Sure! But again, that's where faith comes in, and faith isn't usually easy. Listening submissively in church is one of the particular good works that Scripture CLEARLY tells me in particular, to do, therefore I know for sure that it's one of the particular works that God has "ordained" for me to "walk in". It's not demeaning, it is special, it gives me a special role in the body of Christ, a special work of submission I can do to glorify Him.
I received a free review copy of this book from Intervarsity Press. My review did not have to be favorable.
March 7, 2023
“The submission of women to men taught as Christian doctrine has had untold and far-reaching ramifications that are unrelentingly destructive to women but also to men. There are deep and troubling pastoral consequences of this teaching that affect questions of identity, relationships, calling, and marriage. Books have been written that bring out some of the worst consequences of a theology of
female submission.”
I learned so much from this book. Lucy Peppiatt breaks down confusing concepts in such a clear and concise way. In
Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, Peppiatt tackles headship, hierarchy, submission, and women in leadership. The chapters on Ephesians and on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, in particular, completely blew me away. Suddenly, it all makes sense!
Regardless of where anyone lands on these issues before or after reading this book, the wealth of research, knowledge, and scholarship is well worth your time in better understanding God’s view of women.
female submission.”
I learned so much from this book. Lucy Peppiatt breaks down confusing concepts in such a clear and concise way. In
Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, Peppiatt tackles headship, hierarchy, submission, and women in leadership. The chapters on Ephesians and on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, in particular, completely blew me away. Suddenly, it all makes sense!
Regardless of where anyone lands on these issues before or after reading this book, the wealth of research, knowledge, and scholarship is well worth your time in better understanding God’s view of women.
March 24, 2023
Peppiatt seeks to shift the dominant narrative that God's order is such that men and women are meant to operate in distinctly different roles in the home and the church. Authority, leadership, and submission are not primarily gendered functions. She addresses the common texts (Gen 1-3 and various NT texts) to demonstrate how a hierarchalist narrative cannot truly be maintained by these texts. Too much is assumed, too much is over-interpretted, and too much is ignored or dismissed.
She then provides arguments (some stronger than others) that Scripture itself provides ample justification for women and men in mutual positions of ministry and relationship. Asymmetric relationships are not primarily gendered.
Peppiatt provides a decent summary of a growing batch of scholarly work arguing against hierarchicalist visions for men and women. Even if one disagrees with her outcome, one needs to wrestle with her arguments. Some are quite weighty.
Read this beside Claire Smith's God's Good Design. The topics are almost identical with radically different outcomes.
She then provides arguments (some stronger than others) that Scripture itself provides ample justification for women and men in mutual positions of ministry and relationship. Asymmetric relationships are not primarily gendered.
Peppiatt provides a decent summary of a growing batch of scholarly work arguing against hierarchicalist visions for men and women. Even if one disagrees with her outcome, one needs to wrestle with her arguments. Some are quite weighty.
Read this beside Claire Smith's God's Good Design. The topics are almost identical with radically different outcomes.
June 10, 2023
This book was a bit of a mixed bag; I‘ve been wavering between 3 and 4 stars. Ultimately, I agree almost entirely with Peppiatt’s theology; but I do not always agree with her particular interpretations of certain texts. For instance, I am familiar with her thesis that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34-35 contain quotations of Corinthian interlocutors that Paul introduces for the sake of refutation. This is not a preposterous claim; but I remain unconvinced. Yes, Paul uses ἢ in 14:36, which signals some sort of contrast. But he does the same in 1 Cor. 6:19; and in that passage, he is clearly not refuting a quotation. And outside of ἢ, Paul does not utilize any sort of rhetorical device that would suggest he is engaging an interlocutor (e.g., rhetorical questions as in Rom. 2:3-4). Moreover, Peppiatt’s claim that 11:10 is in the voice of the Corinthian interlocutor requires her to affirm the “symbol/sign of authority” translation of ἐξουσίαν in the clause, “ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς”—which I find to be a dubious translation. It seems far more likely that Paul in 11:10 is affirming the authority women have over their own heads.
In other matters, however, I found Peppiatt to be spot-on. She offers some excellent insight into the semantic range of κεφαλῆ, and the implications of that word’s usage in 1 Corinthians 11 and the NT household codes. I found her discussion of the term’s relatedness to the terms “headstone”/“cornerstone” particularly helpful. Drawing heavily from the work of John Barclay, she also offers a great explanation of the new egalitarian reality made available in Christ (Galatians 3:28). With 1 Timothy 2, she leans heavily into the scholarship of Gary Hoag and Sandra Glahn—arguing for the text’s direct connectedness to the Artemis cult. While I agree that the Artemis cult is likely in mind, I don’t find this interpretation necessary for landing at a more egalitarian position. In any case, it is nice to have such a concise distillation of the work of Hoag and Glahn.
This would not be my first recommendation for somebody interested in the complementarian/egalitarian debate; but it is a helpful contribution to the ongoing discussion. I’m thankful for the opportunity to read it and learn from it.
In other matters, however, I found Peppiatt to be spot-on. She offers some excellent insight into the semantic range of κεφαλῆ, and the implications of that word’s usage in 1 Corinthians 11 and the NT household codes. I found her discussion of the term’s relatedness to the terms “headstone”/“cornerstone” particularly helpful. Drawing heavily from the work of John Barclay, she also offers a great explanation of the new egalitarian reality made available in Christ (Galatians 3:28). With 1 Timothy 2, she leans heavily into the scholarship of Gary Hoag and Sandra Glahn—arguing for the text’s direct connectedness to the Artemis cult. While I agree that the Artemis cult is likely in mind, I don’t find this interpretation necessary for landing at a more egalitarian position. In any case, it is nice to have such a concise distillation of the work of Hoag and Glahn.
This would not be my first recommendation for somebody interested in the complementarian/egalitarian debate; but it is a helpful contribution to the ongoing discussion. I’m thankful for the opportunity to read it and learn from it.
November 17, 2023
Very interesting, well-researched, well presented ideas. I’m still not entirely convinced of all of the author’s theological points, but the grace, depth, sincerity and biblical logic she uses to explain her beliefs has me intrigued to explore this topic more.
August 12, 2024
This book was so good. This should be your next read after Scot McKnight's Blue Parakeet.
May 27, 2022
Excellent, faithful and thorough effort to tackle some disputed texts. Definitely reading again and keeping for reference. Very good/important read!
Read
June 3, 2025Generally pretty good but I can’t get on board with the female God situation.
April 2, 2022
Informative !
November 25, 2022
Semi-Fresh Speculations on Disputed Texts
The subtitle to Lucy Pepppiat’s book Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women promises to provide Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. A better subtitle would be “fresh speculations” on disputed texts combined with older speculations as well (for example relying on the Kroeger's 1992 book).
No matter how many books egalitarians write in an attempt to overturn the complementarian view of gender roles, it always comes down to speculating about what is behind the text rather than dealing with the text in context. Peppiatt’s book is no different. It is filled with speculation and assumptions in order to eliminate the complementarity found in Paul’s inspired, inerrant epistles, especially 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 1 Timothy 2.
For example, Peppiatt makes this huge concession regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
“If one insists that the entire passage reflects Paul's views, then I concede that there is a compelling case for claiming that he believed that what one wears on one's physical head is symbolic of a deeper spiritual reality, and that if women need a sign of authority on their head, it is a small step to imagine that men as well as a veil, represent that authority, because man is the woman's "head."...As I have explained, I have already parted company with this view because I believe defending verses 7-9 as Paul's view is difficult to justify (1) from the text, (2) from the whole letter to the Corinthians, and (3) from Paul’s wider thought.
So, first, I do not link verses 7-10 to verse 3. Second, for a number of reasons I do not see a warrant for describing God as the one in authority or the ruler of Christ” (71).
Peppiatt makes three crucial interpretive moves grounded in subjective speculation that divides this text and distorts Paul's meaning.
1) She refuses to “link verses 7-10 to verse 3,” the opening verse that controls all that follows. Like nearly all Egalitarians she sees vv. 7-10 as Paul contradicting himself if the text is allowed stand as revealed. Yet these verses are not a contradiction but a counterbalancing clarification so the Corinthians don't swing to an extreme.
2) She chooses to begin interpreting the passage by jumping into verses 7-10 rather than working through the passage logically and grammatically beginning in verse 3 and the meaning of the three “head” couplets. Alarm bells should always sound whenever anyone wants to jump into the middle of a passage to understand and re-interpret what surrounds the passage.
3) She decides arbitrarily which verses in the passage are actually Paul speaking and which are the supposed domineering men in the Corinthian church that are forcing the women in the congregation to wear head coverings and be silent (67-68). It is amazing that this kind of speculation is taken seriously by Evangelicals who hold to inerrancy and the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Peppiatt personally chooses which verses in 11:2-16 are Paul the Apostle speaking and which verses are the Corinthian misogynists speaking as they force the Corinthian women to wear head coverings (1 Cor 11) or be silent (1 Cor 14).
Time after time in this book what is mere speculation (like the above on 1 Cor 11) or possible historical background (regarding 1 Timothy 2) is presented as necessary conclusions or outright facts.
The most refreshing aspect of this book is that Peppiatt admits if the text is allowed to stand as it has been revealed, there is a "compelling case" for the complementarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
Ironically, the best insights found in this book are ones that are equally true of and also taught by complementarians regarding marriage (110).
The interpretative approaches of egalitarians toward the inspired text differ remarkably from complementarians. Learn to discern between arbitrary speculations and accurate interpretations.
The subtitle to Lucy Pepppiat’s book Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women promises to provide Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. A better subtitle would be “fresh speculations” on disputed texts combined with older speculations as well (for example relying on the Kroeger's 1992 book).
No matter how many books egalitarians write in an attempt to overturn the complementarian view of gender roles, it always comes down to speculating about what is behind the text rather than dealing with the text in context. Peppiatt’s book is no different. It is filled with speculation and assumptions in order to eliminate the complementarity found in Paul’s inspired, inerrant epistles, especially 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 1 Timothy 2.
For example, Peppiatt makes this huge concession regarding 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
“If one insists that the entire passage reflects Paul's views, then I concede that there is a compelling case for claiming that he believed that what one wears on one's physical head is symbolic of a deeper spiritual reality, and that if women need a sign of authority on their head, it is a small step to imagine that men as well as a veil, represent that authority, because man is the woman's "head."...As I have explained, I have already parted company with this view because I believe defending verses 7-9 as Paul's view is difficult to justify (1) from the text, (2) from the whole letter to the Corinthians, and (3) from Paul’s wider thought.
So, first, I do not link verses 7-10 to verse 3. Second, for a number of reasons I do not see a warrant for describing God as the one in authority or the ruler of Christ” (71).
Peppiatt makes three crucial interpretive moves grounded in subjective speculation that divides this text and distorts Paul's meaning.
1) She refuses to “link verses 7-10 to verse 3,” the opening verse that controls all that follows. Like nearly all Egalitarians she sees vv. 7-10 as Paul contradicting himself if the text is allowed stand as revealed. Yet these verses are not a contradiction but a counterbalancing clarification so the Corinthians don't swing to an extreme.
2) She chooses to begin interpreting the passage by jumping into verses 7-10 rather than working through the passage logically and grammatically beginning in verse 3 and the meaning of the three “head” couplets. Alarm bells should always sound whenever anyone wants to jump into the middle of a passage to understand and re-interpret what surrounds the passage.
3) She decides arbitrarily which verses in the passage are actually Paul speaking and which are the supposed domineering men in the Corinthian church that are forcing the women in the congregation to wear head coverings and be silent (67-68). It is amazing that this kind of speculation is taken seriously by Evangelicals who hold to inerrancy and the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Peppiatt personally chooses which verses in 11:2-16 are Paul the Apostle speaking and which verses are the Corinthian misogynists speaking as they force the Corinthian women to wear head coverings (1 Cor 11) or be silent (1 Cor 14).
Time after time in this book what is mere speculation (like the above on 1 Cor 11) or possible historical background (regarding 1 Timothy 2) is presented as necessary conclusions or outright facts.
The most refreshing aspect of this book is that Peppiatt admits if the text is allowed to stand as it has been revealed, there is a "compelling case" for the complementarian understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
Ironically, the best insights found in this book are ones that are equally true of and also taught by complementarians regarding marriage (110).
The interpretative approaches of egalitarians toward the inspired text differ remarkably from complementarians. Learn to discern between arbitrary speculations and accurate interpretations.
January 12, 2022
I've been reading many different perspectives on this subject lately, and found this one to be somewhat helpful. However, it was not in-depth enough for me. Probably because I've been studying this for awhile, it almost felt like she was skimming over things too quickly. Perhaps that's because she has written several different books on the subject, and this one attempted to bring it all under one volume, but that necessarily means not going as in-depth? I'm not sure.
It seemed like she would make sweeping statements sometimes, and then not support them adequately. Like saying there have "always been" pockets of Christianity that held to a more egalitarian view of women in ministry, but then only giving 1-2 examples that weren't all that convincing, at least by themselves.
I am fairly neutral on this subject myself, and have not yet formed a definite opinion (hence why I'm studying it), so I don't think I'm just biased against her or anything. But I didn't feel particularly satisfied after reading it. I wanted a lot more details and answers. Maybe I should try a different book from her on a more specific scripture passage or something.
Anyway, useful to read in conjunction with other books from various perspectives, but felt like more of an introduction to her view than a well-developed argument for it, in my opinion.
It seemed like she would make sweeping statements sometimes, and then not support them adequately. Like saying there have "always been" pockets of Christianity that held to a more egalitarian view of women in ministry, but then only giving 1-2 examples that weren't all that convincing, at least by themselves.
I am fairly neutral on this subject myself, and have not yet formed a definite opinion (hence why I'm studying it), so I don't think I'm just biased against her or anything. But I didn't feel particularly satisfied after reading it. I wanted a lot more details and answers. Maybe I should try a different book from her on a more specific scripture passage or something.
Anyway, useful to read in conjunction with other books from various perspectives, but felt like more of an introduction to her view than a well-developed argument for it, in my opinion.
September 19, 2019
Lucy Peppiatt’s book is dense, full of detailed scholarship scrutinizing all sides of the argument for a hierarchical vs mutualistic biblical view of women and men. If you are a person who eschews biblical scholarship, respect for language and it’s meaning over the centuries, and rigorous debate, then do not read this book. You are decided. However, if you ask questions of our most ancient literature from the perspective of accuracy both in language and meaning, if correct translation, cultural appropriateness and accurate meaning are important to you, then this is your book.
If you have decided that your version of the relationship of humankind to God and of men to women is above reproach then save yourself and the readers of these comments some time. Someone has already harassed us with enough fundamentalist, one dimensional, female as a second class citizen to the male dominated primary class garbage. Perhaps she should write her own book, though I doubt anyone would read it.
If you have two thinking brain cells and they are not otherwise engaged in literal, fundamentalist biblical readings, Lucy offers you a worthy challenge.
If you have decided that your version of the relationship of humankind to God and of men to women is above reproach then save yourself and the readers of these comments some time. Someone has already harassed us with enough fundamentalist, one dimensional, female as a second class citizen to the male dominated primary class garbage. Perhaps she should write her own book, though I doubt anyone would read it.
If you have two thinking brain cells and they are not otherwise engaged in literal, fundamentalist biblical readings, Lucy offers you a worthy challenge.
September 7, 2025
I'd give this book 10 stars, if I could. And for no other reason than a single sentence on page 75, almost a throwaway line, a personal opinion that is revealed without any real expounding of meaning. Peppiatt comments there that ‘kephalé’ - the word so often translated head in Paul's writing, but most notably in 1 Corinthians 11:3 -
the head of every man is Christ,
and the head of the woman is man,
and the head of Christ is God -
in fact means cornerstone.
The moment I read this, a thousand light bulbs switched on in my head. Of course it's cornerstone! And not just because it can't possibly be head since that's a denial of the co-equal nature of the Trinity but also because it would have been an irresistible choice for a bilingual author. The word ‘kephalé’ has several meanings, one of which is cornerstone, while one possibility for cornerstone from the Hebrew is ‘keph’ with its related ‘kaphar’, covering, atonement. For Paul, the master of puns and allusions and wordplay (see God's Panoply: The Armour of God & the Kiss of Heaven - Expanded Edition), it would have been the perfect choice. How alike do ‘kephalé’ and ‘kaphar’ sound? Besides, a cornerstone was often called the head of the corner or even the head.
R. David Freedman notes that ‘ezer kenegdo’, often translated helper or helpmeet in Genesis to describe woman has the sense of a power equal to man and thus speaks to partnership, not subordinate. (p49)
Genesis 2:24, stating that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, is a radical overturning of the patriarchal marriage structures and a reminder that married men are not at liberty to abandon their wives but are called to covenantal commitment. (p56)
The idea that the male represents the Father in His authority and the female represents the Son in His submission is pervasive in many Christian quarters today. Confusion arises when a wife presented as both analogous to the Son (as submissive to the Father) and also analogous to the Church (as submissive to the Son). The husband on the other hand is analogous to the Son (when He is the authority) and also to the Father as authority. (p87)
Tom Holland makes the point that "the sexual economy [of the ancient world] is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone they want any way they like." Paul's letters act like a depth charge into this thinking. Men are expected to be as honourable and holy as women. (p94)
In 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9 where the qualifications for bishops, deacons and elders are discussed, there is not a single male pronoun (despite English translations to the contrary.) (p133)
Many of the rare and unusual terms in 1 Timothy are found in the novel Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus. Gary Hoag posits, on the basis of these correspondences, that the instructions to Timothy about women specifically refer to those who have come out of the Artemis/Isis cult and carry with them certain expectations of role and behaviour not appropriate to the church. (p146f)
1 Timothy 2:12 (referring to salvation through child-bearing) gives hope - instead of fear - to women who have come out of a goddess cult where special protection to women in childbirth was offered. (p150) Artemis was associated with both delivering a mother safely through childbirth or dispatching the mother in a kind of mercy-killing if the labour was too long or intense. As the one with the power to deliver, she was called saviour. (p152)
the head of every man is Christ,
and the head of the woman is man,
and the head of Christ is God -
in fact means cornerstone.
The moment I read this, a thousand light bulbs switched on in my head. Of course it's cornerstone! And not just because it can't possibly be head since that's a denial of the co-equal nature of the Trinity but also because it would have been an irresistible choice for a bilingual author. The word ‘kephalé’ has several meanings, one of which is cornerstone, while one possibility for cornerstone from the Hebrew is ‘keph’ with its related ‘kaphar’, covering, atonement. For Paul, the master of puns and allusions and wordplay (see God's Panoply: The Armour of God & the Kiss of Heaven - Expanded Edition), it would have been the perfect choice. How alike do ‘kephalé’ and ‘kaphar’ sound? Besides, a cornerstone was often called the head of the corner or even the head.
R. David Freedman notes that ‘ezer kenegdo’, often translated helper or helpmeet in Genesis to describe woman has the sense of a power equal to man and thus speaks to partnership, not subordinate. (p49)
Genesis 2:24, stating that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, is a radical overturning of the patriarchal marriage structures and a reminder that married men are not at liberty to abandon their wives but are called to covenantal commitment. (p56)
The idea that the male represents the Father in His authority and the female represents the Son in His submission is pervasive in many Christian quarters today. Confusion arises when a wife presented as both analogous to the Son (as submissive to the Father) and also analogous to the Church (as submissive to the Son). The husband on the other hand is analogous to the Son (when He is the authority) and also to the Father as authority. (p87)
Tom Holland makes the point that "the sexual economy [of the ancient world] is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone they want any way they like." Paul's letters act like a depth charge into this thinking. Men are expected to be as honourable and holy as women. (p94)
In 1 Timothy 3:1-12 and Titus 1:5-9 where the qualifications for bishops, deacons and elders are discussed, there is not a single male pronoun (despite English translations to the contrary.) (p133)
Many of the rare and unusual terms in 1 Timothy are found in the novel Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus. Gary Hoag posits, on the basis of these correspondences, that the instructions to Timothy about women specifically refer to those who have come out of the Artemis/Isis cult and carry with them certain expectations of role and behaviour not appropriate to the church. (p146f)
1 Timothy 2:12 (referring to salvation through child-bearing) gives hope - instead of fear - to women who have come out of a goddess cult where special protection to women in childbirth was offered. (p150) Artemis was associated with both delivering a mother safely through childbirth or dispatching the mother in a kind of mercy-killing if the labour was too long or intense. As the one with the power to deliver, she was called saviour. (p152)
January 17, 2020
Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women is a theological book and quite academic, so I didn’t always find it easy to read. Nevertheless, Lucy Peppiatt’s message is clear, a patriarchal world wasn’t God’s intention and a male-dominated hierarchy isn’t as Scriptural as many have been led to believe. Lucy is the principal of a theological college. She writes to bring some fresh perspectives on disputed texts regarding women in ministry.
Lucy begins by discussing the nature of God. Often human attributes, including maleness and femaleness, are ascribed to God but only as a metaphorical way of helping us understand God’s nature. Since God is Spirit, he is neither male nor female. Lucy moves on look at the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 and notices that authority isn’t mentioned. There is no reason to assume that Adam being created first or that he named Eve implies authority. (After all, Hagar named God, El Roi).
Lucy discusses the women in Jesus’ life starting with Mary and including the women who travelled with Jesus as disciples and patrons of his ministry. She considers their role as witnesses to the resurrection. She discusses the “Fall” and what it means for Eve to be Adam’s “helper,” noticing that this word is also used to describe the Holy Spirit.
Lucy describes how Jesus and Paul treated women. In Jesus’ time, Gentiles, slaves and women weren’t highly regarded, yet Jesus treated them with kindness and as people of worth. Paul continues this in his letter, talking about how Christ has removed the barriers between people and united them in his church, his Body. Paul uses the word “head” but what did it mean to Paul’s first readers? Lucy concludes that it’s likely he meant “headstone” or “cornerstone” and writes, “Christ as the head means that he is the organizing center.” He is the One who brings his Body together into harmony and unity. Christ brings together Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, so that all are loved, valued and empowered by his Spirit.
This viewpoint makes a difference when we read Paul’s description of Christ’s Body in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. We can’t say, “we don’t need you,” to someone on the basis of their ethnic background, social standing or gender. In fact, “those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable” (v.22).
Lucy discusses marriage and notes that husbands and wives are both called to submit to each other. In fact, husbands are called to a higher level of submission in giving themselves up for their wives (Ephesians 5:25).
In Lucy’s chapter on Mistranslations, Misinterpretations, and Misunderstandings, she points out how a strong male bias has occurred in the translation of many passages regarding women and the roles they played in the early church. At times, I felt myself becoming annoyed at some of the translators.
Lucy’s concluding chapter on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, was enlightening. It helps to know the context of Paul’s letter to Timothy, who was in Ephesus at the time.
Overall, I found the book helpful, encouraging and faith-building.
Lucy begins by discussing the nature of God. Often human attributes, including maleness and femaleness, are ascribed to God but only as a metaphorical way of helping us understand God’s nature. Since God is Spirit, he is neither male nor female. Lucy moves on look at the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 and notices that authority isn’t mentioned. There is no reason to assume that Adam being created first or that he named Eve implies authority. (After all, Hagar named God, El Roi).
Lucy discusses the women in Jesus’ life starting with Mary and including the women who travelled with Jesus as disciples and patrons of his ministry. She considers their role as witnesses to the resurrection. She discusses the “Fall” and what it means for Eve to be Adam’s “helper,” noticing that this word is also used to describe the Holy Spirit.
Lucy describes how Jesus and Paul treated women. In Jesus’ time, Gentiles, slaves and women weren’t highly regarded, yet Jesus treated them with kindness and as people of worth. Paul continues this in his letter, talking about how Christ has removed the barriers between people and united them in his church, his Body. Paul uses the word “head” but what did it mean to Paul’s first readers? Lucy concludes that it’s likely he meant “headstone” or “cornerstone” and writes, “Christ as the head means that he is the organizing center.” He is the One who brings his Body together into harmony and unity. Christ brings together Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, so that all are loved, valued and empowered by his Spirit.
This viewpoint makes a difference when we read Paul’s description of Christ’s Body in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. We can’t say, “we don’t need you,” to someone on the basis of their ethnic background, social standing or gender. In fact, “those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable” (v.22).
Lucy discusses marriage and notes that husbands and wives are both called to submit to each other. In fact, husbands are called to a higher level of submission in giving themselves up for their wives (Ephesians 5:25).
In Lucy’s chapter on Mistranslations, Misinterpretations, and Misunderstandings, she points out how a strong male bias has occurred in the translation of many passages regarding women and the roles they played in the early church. At times, I felt myself becoming annoyed at some of the translators.
Lucy’s concluding chapter on 1 Timothy 2:8-15, was enlightening. It helps to know the context of Paul’s letter to Timothy, who was in Ephesus at the time.
Overall, I found the book helpful, encouraging and faith-building.
June 15, 2025
In Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women, Lucy Peppiatt challenges traditional, restrictive interpretations of Pauline texts regarding women in church leadership. She proposes an egalitarian approach rooted in cultural context, rhetorical analysis, and a redemptive-historical reading shaped by the new creation in Christ. Her central claim is that long-standing biblical restrictions on women arise from flawed interpretations, not from the texts themselves.
Peppiatt begins by addressing theological assumptions, such as the maleness of God and Christ. She asserts that God transcends gender and that Jesus’ male incarnation served a redemptive purpose, enabling both men and women to identify with him. She draws on Genesis 1 to argue that both male and female equally bear God’s image, interpreting the Hebrew phrase ezer kenegdo as evidence of woman’s equal strength and status. Eve’s creation from Adam’s side rather than his head or feet, she claims, further supports equality rather than hierarchy.
A significant part of her argument centers on the Pauline use of kephalē (Greek for “head”). Peppiatt critiques the traditional interpretation of kephalē as “authority over” and instead supports a minority view that translates it as “source” or “cornerstone.” Drawing on early church thinkers like Chrysostom, she presents male-female relationships as mutual and rooted in love, not domination.
Peppiatt also highlights women like Phoebe and Junia as examples of early female leaders. Phoebe, she argues, was a deacon with teaching authority, while Junia was a female apostle—claims she believes dismantle hierarchical limitations on women in ministry. In interpreting 1 Timothy 2:9–15, Peppiatt appeals to cultural context, asserting Paul’s restrictions were specific to women influenced by the Artemis cult in Ephesus and not meant as universal commands.
While her arguments are passionate and well-organized, Peppiatt’s work shows weaknesses. Her use of cultural reconstruction—especially regarding 1 Timothy—sometimes overrides the plain reading of the biblical text. She engages scholarly sources but leans heavily on egalitarian ones, often dismissing complementarian critiques without substantial rebuttal. Her reading of kephalē is a minority interpretation, and she does not fully engage with the broader scholarly consensus.
Peppiatt’s theological biases, while aiming to affirm women’s worth and gifting, sometimes result in interpretive inconsistency. Nevertheless, the book presents a thought-provoking challenge to traditional views and encourages renewed attention to Scripture’s vision for gender and leadership. Her work is both compelling and controversial, offering valuable insights while leaving room for further debate.
Peppiatt begins by addressing theological assumptions, such as the maleness of God and Christ. She asserts that God transcends gender and that Jesus’ male incarnation served a redemptive purpose, enabling both men and women to identify with him. She draws on Genesis 1 to argue that both male and female equally bear God’s image, interpreting the Hebrew phrase ezer kenegdo as evidence of woman’s equal strength and status. Eve’s creation from Adam’s side rather than his head or feet, she claims, further supports equality rather than hierarchy.
A significant part of her argument centers on the Pauline use of kephalē (Greek for “head”). Peppiatt critiques the traditional interpretation of kephalē as “authority over” and instead supports a minority view that translates it as “source” or “cornerstone.” Drawing on early church thinkers like Chrysostom, she presents male-female relationships as mutual and rooted in love, not domination.
Peppiatt also highlights women like Phoebe and Junia as examples of early female leaders. Phoebe, she argues, was a deacon with teaching authority, while Junia was a female apostle—claims she believes dismantle hierarchical limitations on women in ministry. In interpreting 1 Timothy 2:9–15, Peppiatt appeals to cultural context, asserting Paul’s restrictions were specific to women influenced by the Artemis cult in Ephesus and not meant as universal commands.
While her arguments are passionate and well-organized, Peppiatt’s work shows weaknesses. Her use of cultural reconstruction—especially regarding 1 Timothy—sometimes overrides the plain reading of the biblical text. She engages scholarly sources but leans heavily on egalitarian ones, often dismissing complementarian critiques without substantial rebuttal. Her reading of kephalē is a minority interpretation, and she does not fully engage with the broader scholarly consensus.
Peppiatt’s theological biases, while aiming to affirm women’s worth and gifting, sometimes result in interpretive inconsistency. Nevertheless, the book presents a thought-provoking challenge to traditional views and encourages renewed attention to Scripture’s vision for gender and leadership. Her work is both compelling and controversial, offering valuable insights while leaving room for further debate.
March 9, 2020
Having being raised and taught that the hierarchicalist (i.e. complementarian) view of women in leadership and marriage is biblical – but that always having sat uncomfortably with me – this was a breath of much-needed fresh air. Over the past few years, I solidified my conviction through extensive study, thought and prayer that there should be no limitations to women in church leadership. (I first heard Lucy Peppiatt speak at a conference, and despite having heard all the arguments for/against, her insight that there are certain passages in 1 Corinthians that need to be read as the Corinthians' mistaken beliefs rather than Paul's was utterly radical and persuasive. It's changed forever how I read the epistles.) This book not only continued to affirm my thoughts about women in leadership, but it also gave me peace of mind that a mutualist (e.g. egalitarian) view within marriage is more biblical than not.
Personally, the most convincing point she makes was found in chapter 5 when she insightfully points out the logical fallacies of Tim and Kathy Keller's view propounded in their influential book 'The Meaning of Marriage' which supports Ephesians 5 with Philippians 2: why is it 'that married women are to take the role of Christ only in his state of humiliation because [hierarchicalists] believe this state to be characterized by voluntary submission and sacrifice, while husbands are to take both the role of Christ in his state of exaltation or the role of the Father because these roles are characterized by authority, commanding, and sending'? (88)
In other words, if wives are to take the role of Christ (especially based on this particular reading of Philippians 2), why aren't they exalted like Christ is (at the end of Philippians 2)? Why aren't they seen as "one" and "equal" with husbands if there are also other scriptural references to Christ and God as "one" and "equal"? And if husbands too take the role of Christ, why is it only (when based on Ephesians 5) when Christ is the "head" of the Church?
There's obviously a lot of other good points she makes (e.g. "weaker sex" doesn't pertain to biological distinctions but rather societal systemic oppression). There were a few spots which I felt was lacking in support and evidence, and where I would have liked a more in-depth explanation (although to be fair to her she acknowledges she only has time and space to sparsely lay out her points, and points us to a plethora of further reading), but on the whole it was an encouraging, empowering read. The Lord renewed my mind through this book!
Personally, the most convincing point she makes was found in chapter 5 when she insightfully points out the logical fallacies of Tim and Kathy Keller's view propounded in their influential book 'The Meaning of Marriage' which supports Ephesians 5 with Philippians 2: why is it 'that married women are to take the role of Christ only in his state of humiliation because [hierarchicalists] believe this state to be characterized by voluntary submission and sacrifice, while husbands are to take both the role of Christ in his state of exaltation or the role of the Father because these roles are characterized by authority, commanding, and sending'? (88)
In other words, if wives are to take the role of Christ (especially based on this particular reading of Philippians 2), why aren't they exalted like Christ is (at the end of Philippians 2)? Why aren't they seen as "one" and "equal" with husbands if there are also other scriptural references to Christ and God as "one" and "equal"? And if husbands too take the role of Christ, why is it only (when based on Ephesians 5) when Christ is the "head" of the Church?
There's obviously a lot of other good points she makes (e.g. "weaker sex" doesn't pertain to biological distinctions but rather societal systemic oppression). There were a few spots which I felt was lacking in support and evidence, and where I would have liked a more in-depth explanation (although to be fair to her she acknowledges she only has time and space to sparsely lay out her points, and points us to a plethora of further reading), but on the whole it was an encouraging, empowering read. The Lord renewed my mind through this book!
August 6, 2024
Are women absolutely silent in churches ? No. Do women always wear head coverings? No. Many Christians claim to follow the Bible literally but very few do. Even with those who say women should not teach or lead males in any fashion, lots of exceptions are found.
Do orthodox believers think that only Eve sinned and not Adam also? No. Do we believe that women are saved and gain eternal life by giving birth instead of through Christ’s death? No.
We sense instinctively that when Paul writes about these things in his letters, they are culturally specific or that something is lost in translation. Indeed Paul honored many women in leadership in the churches. So what’s going on?
This is where Lucy Peppiatt’s book is so helpful. She looks at the confusing passages about women in the New Testament with a scholar’s eye and a pastor’s heart.
Her chapter on 1 Timothy 2 is especially helpful in popularizing the work of Gary Hoag and Sandra Glahn who have done pioneering academic work. Their historical research shows how the cultural background of the Artemis cult in Ephesus clearly informed Paul’s writing. He is specifically talking about women who continue to dress and act in church like followers of the goddess Artemis. Some may even presume to take on a teaching role, as they did as cult leaders, even though they have not been adequately taught in the Christian faith.
Thus Paul is not offering a universal command about silence and dress for all women everywhere. Rather, it is a command that continues to have validity but in its context.
Tellingly, Peppiatt notes, the one clear command in 1 Timothy 2 is that women should learn. In the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures of Paul’s day which shoved education to the background for most women, this was a revolutionary vision.
Do orthodox believers think that only Eve sinned and not Adam also? No. Do we believe that women are saved and gain eternal life by giving birth instead of through Christ’s death? No.
We sense instinctively that when Paul writes about these things in his letters, they are culturally specific or that something is lost in translation. Indeed Paul honored many women in leadership in the churches. So what’s going on?
This is where Lucy Peppiatt’s book is so helpful. She looks at the confusing passages about women in the New Testament with a scholar’s eye and a pastor’s heart.
Her chapter on 1 Timothy 2 is especially helpful in popularizing the work of Gary Hoag and Sandra Glahn who have done pioneering academic work. Their historical research shows how the cultural background of the Artemis cult in Ephesus clearly informed Paul’s writing. He is specifically talking about women who continue to dress and act in church like followers of the goddess Artemis. Some may even presume to take on a teaching role, as they did as cult leaders, even though they have not been adequately taught in the Christian faith.
Thus Paul is not offering a universal command about silence and dress for all women everywhere. Rather, it is a command that continues to have validity but in its context.
Tellingly, Peppiatt notes, the one clear command in 1 Timothy 2 is that women should learn. In the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures of Paul’s day which shoved education to the background for most women, this was a revolutionary vision.
March 1, 2023
It’s been a few months, so I hope I can still review accurately. I came to this book hoping to hear a well-argued, biblical egalitarian perspective and that’s what I got. I think in any debate, it’s fascinating and essential to not just know the other side’s point of view, but to understand the legitimate reasons God-fearing, intelligent people have arrived there. I concluded after reading this that if you define “headship” one way in Genesis, you’ll move forward with a certain understanding of scripture. If you define it another way, you’ll conclude something very different. Both definitions have their argument, but I felt more convinced after reading this that her argument was too much of a stretch. I also fully recognize I could be wrong.
While the case was thoroughly presented and convincing in many regards, I often felt what she was saying further proved what she was arguing against, and arriving there truly wasn’t my goal going in. I often felt she was assigning motives and intent to complimentarian churches that I don’t believe are accurate in the vast majority of churches.
Simply put, if you see gender roles as offensive, or as hierarchical, you will naturally resent them. I think she finds them degrading and has adopted a compelling biblical argument against them.
However, if you see female roles as beautiful and particularly impactful and essential — not just to church but to society and family — you come away honored. If it’s not a hierarchy of power or value (and it is clear that is not the way Jesus sees it) it is a beautiful arrangement.
So while this book was informative and well done, it made me double down on the argument it was trying to disprove. I do understand better, though, where the opposing side is coming from.
While the case was thoroughly presented and convincing in many regards, I often felt what she was saying further proved what she was arguing against, and arriving there truly wasn’t my goal going in. I often felt she was assigning motives and intent to complimentarian churches that I don’t believe are accurate in the vast majority of churches.
Simply put, if you see gender roles as offensive, or as hierarchical, you will naturally resent them. I think she finds them degrading and has adopted a compelling biblical argument against them.
However, if you see female roles as beautiful and particularly impactful and essential — not just to church but to society and family — you come away honored. If it’s not a hierarchy of power or value (and it is clear that is not the way Jesus sees it) it is a beautiful arrangement.
So while this book was informative and well done, it made me double down on the argument it was trying to disprove. I do understand better, though, where the opposing side is coming from.
August 18, 2024
"Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women" by Lucy Peppiatt
5🌟/5🌟
Yet another book I wish I had when growing up. This wonderful book was published in 2019, and I am so glad to have read it and have it available to me now. I think we will look back and consider this one of the books that really got the conversation going (again) on women in the New Testament.
Lucy examines all the major New Testament "clobber verses" that have been used to subjugate and silence women for centuries. In her examinations of the "clobber verses," Lucy challenges traditional interpretations of biblical texts related to women, arguing that many interpretations have been shaped by patriarchal biases rather than the original intent of Scripture.
Peppiatt explores key passages New Testaments, especially the epistles in historical and cultural context. She also breaks down the Greek translations, showing how patriarchical translations have hidden or completely erased women from leadership in the New Testament. I especially enjoyed her perspectives on Paul's rhetorical arguments and explanations of 1st Timothy 2 and 1st Corinthians 11:2-15. There are so many wonderful pearls of knowledge that help me understand how the New Testament presents a more egalitarian view of gender roles than I was told growing up.
Lucy emphasizes the dignity, value, and leadership roles of women as portrayed in Scripture, advocating for a reevaluation of how churches understand and apply these texts today. Peppiatt's work encourages Christians to rediscover the radical, inclusive vision for women in early church history and consider how these texts inspire and are applicable to us today.
5🌟/5🌟
Yet another book I wish I had when growing up. This wonderful book was published in 2019, and I am so glad to have read it and have it available to me now. I think we will look back and consider this one of the books that really got the conversation going (again) on women in the New Testament.
Lucy examines all the major New Testament "clobber verses" that have been used to subjugate and silence women for centuries. In her examinations of the "clobber verses," Lucy challenges traditional interpretations of biblical texts related to women, arguing that many interpretations have been shaped by patriarchal biases rather than the original intent of Scripture.
Peppiatt explores key passages New Testaments, especially the epistles in historical and cultural context. She also breaks down the Greek translations, showing how patriarchical translations have hidden or completely erased women from leadership in the New Testament. I especially enjoyed her perspectives on Paul's rhetorical arguments and explanations of 1st Timothy 2 and 1st Corinthians 11:2-15. There are so many wonderful pearls of knowledge that help me understand how the New Testament presents a more egalitarian view of gender roles than I was told growing up.
Lucy emphasizes the dignity, value, and leadership roles of women as portrayed in Scripture, advocating for a reevaluation of how churches understand and apply these texts today. Peppiatt's work encourages Christians to rediscover the radical, inclusive vision for women in early church history and consider how these texts inspire and are applicable to us today.
December 16, 2019
Could there really be a "fresh perspective" on the issue of women in ministry-leadership today? Even considering the thousands and thousands of pages that have been written on the subject?
Apparently, yes!
I've studied fairly extensively on this topic, and was gladly surprised by Peppiatt's contribution to the debate. Her scholarship is sharp, and her awareness of the pastoral and cultural issues is very clear. She brings a lucid, reasonable, and passionate perspective, carefully walking through the foundational issues: the creation narratives, the complicated discussion of "headship," the question of submission within the Trinity, what is going on in Corinthians, and of course, that notorious 1 Timothy 2 passage (wisely, this is left for the end of the book). I was prompted to reflect on my own perspective, but also genuinely learned many new things about these texts: the chapter on 1 Timothy 2 kind of blew my mind.
Not everyone will be convinced, of course, but Peppiatt deserves a fair hearing. This is going right up there with books like Sumner's "Men and Women in the Church" as essential reading for ministry leaders who want to honestly grapple with this important topic.
Apparently, yes!
I've studied fairly extensively on this topic, and was gladly surprised by Peppiatt's contribution to the debate. Her scholarship is sharp, and her awareness of the pastoral and cultural issues is very clear. She brings a lucid, reasonable, and passionate perspective, carefully walking through the foundational issues: the creation narratives, the complicated discussion of "headship," the question of submission within the Trinity, what is going on in Corinthians, and of course, that notorious 1 Timothy 2 passage (wisely, this is left for the end of the book). I was prompted to reflect on my own perspective, but also genuinely learned many new things about these texts: the chapter on 1 Timothy 2 kind of blew my mind.
Not everyone will be convinced, of course, but Peppiatt deserves a fair hearing. This is going right up there with books like Sumner's "Men and Women in the Church" as essential reading for ministry leaders who want to honestly grapple with this important topic.
May 19, 2021
I've read a few books that address some of the exegetical issues surrounding the limitation of women in ministry, and this is one of the best. Peppiatt does a meticulous job of addressing the issues, and builds a foundation of why she approaches disputed passages as she does.
Peppiatt looks at biblical passages which discuss the role of women in the church throughout history, beginning with who we are in creation, and how this should inform our interpretation in later passages of the Bible. She ably shows that the passages which are typically used to limit women -- I Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 -- can be explained with a different conclusion; one that does not limit women. Her close examination of the culture in which Paul wrote, especially the discussion of Ephesian culture, is very helpful. Part of how we read Scripture must take into consideration that it was written in a very different world than we live now, and we cannot assume that the biblical writers were speaking to a modern audience. This means being careful about how we interpret. And it may mean we really can't say definitively what was meant.
That said, Peppiatt's arguments are convincing, and at the very least, should force hard-line complementarians to re-evaluate.
Peppiatt looks at biblical passages which discuss the role of women in the church throughout history, beginning with who we are in creation, and how this should inform our interpretation in later passages of the Bible. She ably shows that the passages which are typically used to limit women -- I Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 -- can be explained with a different conclusion; one that does not limit women. Her close examination of the culture in which Paul wrote, especially the discussion of Ephesian culture, is very helpful. Part of how we read Scripture must take into consideration that it was written in a very different world than we live now, and we cannot assume that the biblical writers were speaking to a modern audience. This means being careful about how we interpret. And it may mean we really can't say definitively what was meant.
That said, Peppiatt's arguments are convincing, and at the very least, should force hard-line complementarians to re-evaluate.
January 17, 2020
This book could have been a five star book, but the earlier chapters were written in a style where the voice in the text was often unclear. I would wonder whether this was the author’s opinion or the opinion of someone else that was being reported by the author. Also, there were many times when the author would state something to the effect of “this is my opinion” which detracted from the overall solid and convincing arguments she was making. Presumably, Peppiatt wouldn’t argue something that wasn’t her opinion. The result was the message that she believed what she was writing without having a solid basis for believing it, but it was what she wanted the conclusion to be so she would just take that as her opinion. This was an unnecessary move that weakened the power of the book. The overall arguments are convincing that in Christ all barriers to women for leadership in the church and elsewhere have been removed. Women like men can and should serve wherever God calls and the Holy Spirit empowers. This is a book well worth engaging, especially if passages in Paul about women have ever bugged you or led you to believe that he was trying to restrain women from ministry.
July 11, 2024
Reading books like this is always fascinating to me. Every religion on this planet is inherently anti-woman by virtue of designating her as fundamentally lesser than man. It's really the whole point- believe in my god and you can get a free slave! Bogo! The Christians are much kinder about it than the Muslims, for example, but a slave owner who doesn't beat his slave is still a slave owner. Women being dehumanized to justify their position as property to men is a feature, not a bug.
So to see Peppiatt here bend herself into pretzels to try and explain why that DOESN'T have to be the case is absolutely fascinating. I say this with complete respect -- the woman has done her homework. She brings up many interesting points. But every point she makes only has validity insofar as anyone, man or woman, believes the religion's lie about equal dignity. There has never been such a thing, and there never will be. It's just not what the religion intended, and it's certainly not what most male leaders (or male followers) want. The religion isn't for you, sis.
Good read, flawed premise.
So to see Peppiatt here bend herself into pretzels to try and explain why that DOESN'T have to be the case is absolutely fascinating. I say this with complete respect -- the woman has done her homework. She brings up many interesting points. But every point she makes only has validity insofar as anyone, man or woman, believes the religion's lie about equal dignity. There has never been such a thing, and there never will be. It's just not what the religion intended, and it's certainly not what most male leaders (or male followers) want. The religion isn't for you, sis.
Good read, flawed premise.
June 9, 2021
I read this with a group of women in leadership in preparation for a conference with the author this coming weekend. It was an excellent read, unpacking a lot of the "troublesome" scriptures often used to argue that women should not be in leadership positions in the church and ministry, in order to understand their true meaning. (Spoiler - God ordained women to operate as equals in all things 😉) Lucy Peppiatt is respectful to all parties and clearly illustrates what the arguments for both sides are, while diving deeply into original language, context, culture, and examining the inconsistencies to help readers arrive at their own conclusion. She is not simply arguing that scripture has been misinterpreted and here is the "right" way to interpret it in order to prove her point, which I appreciated. All in all it was a compelling and informative read on the topic. My only complaint is it sometimes felt a bit dry.
August 19, 2022
Some really good parts. It's always hard reading something that challenges ideas you've learned or had for years. Not everything in the book was that, just a few chapters (4-6 mostly), and even that was more in word than application. In those chapters, I wish the author had used more references outside of her own previous work, especially because it relates to interpreting the Bible. Even when agreeing with the conclusion, it was hard for me to take seriously her process of reaching it when all of her writing seemed to be based on her own opinion, especially when using her own translation of a biblical text. In the chapters where she did utilize more outside sources (historical, theological, contextual, and original language), it was much easier to follow her train of thought and appreciate how she arrived at her conclusions. Overall, not my favorite writing style but would recommend the content.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews