What do you think?
Rate this book
Women and Worship at Corinth
Making sense of Paul's arguments in 1 Corinthians 11-14 regarding both the role of women in public worship and the value of tongues and prophecy for the unbeliever has long posed challenges for any lay reader or scholar. Despite numerous explanations offered over the years, these passages remain marked by inconsistencies, contradictions, and puzzles. Lucy Peppiatt offers a reading of 1 Corinthians 11-14 in which she proposes that Paul is in conversation with the Corinthian male leadership regarding their domineering, superior, and selfish practices, including coercing the women to wear head coverings, lording it over the ''have-nots'' at the Lord's Supper, speaking in tongues all at once, and ordering married women to keep quiet in church. Through careful exegesis and theological comment this reading not only brings internal coherence to the text, but paints a picture of the apostle gripped by a vision for a new humanity ''in the Lord,'' resulting in his refusal to compromise with the traditional views of his own society. Instead, as those who should identify with the crucified Christ, he exhorts the Corinthians to make ''love'' their aim, and thus to restore dignity and honor to women, the outsider, and the poor.
160 pages, Paperback
First published April 16, 2015
64 people are currently reading
574 people want to read
About the author
Lucy Peppiatt
13 books60 followersDr. Lucy Peppiatt has been Principal at Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) since 2013. She teaches courses in Christian doctrine and in spiritual formation. She holds bachelor’s degrees in both English and Theology. She completed her MA in Systematic Theology at King’s College, London, and her PhD through the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Lucy’s research interests are Christ and the Spirit, Charismatic theology, theological anthropology, discipleship, 1 Corinthians, and women in the Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
April 20, 2015
Bible myths arise easily. A text is assumed to mean something and some trusted source will assert it to be a known custom from historical writings. This might be seen most strangely in the writings of Paul concerning women in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. "Married Greek women only went out in public wearing veils," says one legend. Only it isn't true. What in the world is going on then in Paul's letter to Corinth? Why does he say "I want you all to prophesy" (14:5) and yet "women should keep silent in the churches" (14:34)? How can one prophesy while being silent? Something has seemed strange for a long time about Paul's words concerning women and virtually all commentators have noted that something bizarre was going on while confidently asserting some harmonizing interpretation. But have any of the manifold guesses about meaning hit the mark?
Lucy Peppiatt writes a convincing case that we've been missing a key fact about Paul's letter for all these centuries. It is already a known phenomenon that Paul recites in some places the words of people he disagrees with and then refutes them. Nearly everyone recognizes this is the case in 1 Corinthians in a number of places, including the following slogans:
All things are lawful for me (6:12).
Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food (6:13).
All of us possess knowledge (8:1).
An idol has no real existence (8:4).
All things are lawful (10:23).
There is no resurrection of the dead (15:12)
In each of these instances, some teachers in Corinth have made assertions, turning them into arguments excusing various practices or denying key beliefs of the Gospel. And in each case Paul argues against them:
But not all things are helpful . . . I will not be dominated by anything (6:12).
God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (6:13).
This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up (8:1).
If anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? (8:10).
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain (15:13-14).
Furthermore, Peppiatt points out, Douglas Campbell (who writes the foreword to her book) has made a 1,200 page case hinging on the idea that Romans 1:18-3:20 contains many of the words of Paul's rival, words which have been mistaken as Paul's own view ever since (The Deliverance of God). And before Douglas Campbell's book we had Stanley Stowers telling us that Greek manuscripts were first transmitted in scripto continua, a kind of writing that no only lacks punctuation, but even spaces between words (A Rereading of Romans). If Paul alternated his own words with those of his opponents in some of his diatribes, later readers might not grasp the literary technique and might confuse whose voice is behind the various phrases and arguments.
Lest anyone claim that Peppiatt (or Campbell or Stowers) can use this phenomenon to strike simply any verses they find offensive from Paul, there is a methodology for recognizing likely recitations of the words of others in a letter. Those employing this "speech in character" technique which Paul is using follow a basic pattern. There is a shift in the logic or a noticeable contradiction between one set of statements and another. For example, when we read "all things are lawful for me but not all things are helpful," one way to read this is to assume Paul agrees with all of it. This would contradict numerous statements in Paul's letter about things that are definitely not "lawful." Another way to read it is that Paul undermines the first part of the saying with the second. He is not really agreeing with the initial statement but is showing with a second argument that it is false.
Likewise, in three passages in particular, the triple focus of Peppiatt's book, she shows that this pattern exists. The argument in 11:2-16 has its turning point in the "nevertheless" of vs. 11. The debate about speaking in tongues in 14:20-25 turns on vs. 23's "if then." The argument over the role of women in worship in 14:26-39 turns on Paul's rhetorical question in vs. 36, "Did the word of God originate with you?" In each of these three texts, what comes after the turning point subverts and refutes the arguments of the Corinthian men that come in the first part.
You see, Peppiatt is convinced the problem in Corinth is some gifted but domineering men. The usual theory is the opposite, that some wild women of Corinth are flouting social customs. Some say the problem was women going about bareheaded in public and/or in worship. Some say it was about hairstyles, not headcoverings, and women were using their "freedom in Christ" to justify letting their hair down. And some argue that a woman with her hair down was advertising her body as available for sex, as prostitutes would do. Is Paul mainly trying to bring some wild women of Corinth under control?
Peppiatt is hard to ignore when she says that she can much more easily imagine the following scenario than the commonly assumed wild women of Corinth storyline:
The Corinthian church was being dominated by a group of spiritually gifted and highly articulate teachers who were both overbearing and divisive men. Under their influential leadership, certain oppressive practices had been implemented, and other destructive and selfish practices had remained unchallenged. It was they who believed . . . that men and women should display signs of their own status before God, one another, and the angels in worship. Because, according to Genesis 2, women were created second, the Corinthians were teaching they have a secondary place in the creation order, deriving their glory not directly from Christ, but from man. For this reason to wear a sign of authority/subjection/honor on their "heads." As man is the glory of Christ, and Christ is the "head" of man, however, he must display this glory by remaining bareheaded. I imagine these men could have been both powerful and forceful, pronouncing the "word of God," laying down the law, and arguing that if a woman was bareheaded this was tantamount to appearing before God as a prostitute and thus shaming the men, the angels, and God himself -- she may as well appear shaven (pgs. 81-82).
The avid Bible reader may recognize that in this description Peppiatt has captured many themes from throughout Paul's letter. Her reconstruction has a major advantage in eliminating a host of difficulties. Interpretive problems in these three texts of 1 Corinthians include, as she details on pages 62-63:
Whether one of the issues is headcoverings or hairstyles.
What is the source of the shame being caused by whatever custom is being practiced?
How Paul can interpret Genesis in this way (which seems like a shoddy exegesis).
Whether Paul is referring to all men and women or only married ones.
What the historical situation and customs were (commentators only can speculate as there is no clear historical context that makes sense of these texts).
How the angels are involved (and if they are, how can churches today claim this was cultural and need not be observed anymore?).
How the inconsistencies between 11:2-10 and 11:11-16 can be explained.
Why Paul insists this policy is implemented in "all the churches."
To summarize her conclusions, suffice it to say that if the reader will assume some of the words are not Paul's a consistent and logical reading is possible. Paul is not worried about shame at all. He says the apostles are "last of all" and are "a spectacle to the whole cosmos" (4:8-13). The congregational gatherings, especially the Lord's Supper is supposed to be a place that levels social differences (11:22) and divisions (11:18). God's way is not to worry about the honor of important people, but to choose the "foolish to shame the wise" (1:27). Our current bodies are dishonorable (15:43) but will be glorious in the future. People in Messiah are one in Spirit, baptized into the same fellowship, whether slave or free, Jewish or Greek (12:13). The male, dominant teachers in Corinth have devised a number of arguments justifying some of their practices which deviate from what Paul taught them. With regard to women they have come up with a chain of logic that goes something like this:
Adam was created by God alone but women by God from man.
Men, therefore, are the glory of God but women the glory of man.
A man, therefore, should bear his head as God is directly above him.
A woman, therefore, should cover her head (or wear her hair up) as a sign of submission to men (or her husband).
If a woman will not cover her head, her hair should be shorn!
Woman was created for the needs of man, another reason for submission.
Angels are watching and any sign of sexual looseness (bare head/unbound hair) in women shames them.
From these arguments the men also deduced that women must be silent in the worship and discussion of the teachings.
Paul refutes their arguments and teaches them otherwise:
It is illogical to say that woman should have her head shaved if she does not cover it in worship (11:6).
You forget that man and woman are mutually interdependent (11:11-12), so don't pretend women are inferior to men.
Don't your own social customs suggest that long hair is more appropriate to women? If so, then look, the woman already has her head covered! (11:15). So give up this ridiculous requirement.
Your headcovering (or hair-binding) requirement is moot, there is no such custom in the congregations of God (11:16).
You say women must be silent in the congregation, but are you prophets giving new laws from God now? (14:36).
How did this word come to you and to no one else, including the apostles? (14:36-37).
What I, Paul, am writing to you is the Lord's command (14:37; that all should prophesy, including daughters, as per Joel 3:1 (2:28)).
Stop trying to dominate others in matters of worship, speaking in languages, and prophesying, but do all in order and with inclusiveness (14:38-39).
Peppiatt's argument is powerful and thorough, in a way that this book review can only approximate. Her text is readable and enjoyable, if at times, repetitive. Her final statement on pages 136-137 about the servant-like nature the congregations should exhibit ("the cruciform shape of the church") in imitation of Messiah is worth the price of the book.
One minor complaint is that Cascade books has utterly failed in the editing process. Through some computer error, in numerous places throughout the book, scripture references are incomplete and numbers are missing (to the point of there being blank spaces in the book). Hopefully this will be corrected in a second printing.
Lucy Peppiatt writes a convincing case that we've been missing a key fact about Paul's letter for all these centuries. It is already a known phenomenon that Paul recites in some places the words of people he disagrees with and then refutes them. Nearly everyone recognizes this is the case in 1 Corinthians in a number of places, including the following slogans:
All things are lawful for me (6:12).
Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food (6:13).
All of us possess knowledge (8:1).
An idol has no real existence (8:4).
All things are lawful (10:23).
There is no resurrection of the dead (15:12)
In each of these instances, some teachers in Corinth have made assertions, turning them into arguments excusing various practices or denying key beliefs of the Gospel. And in each case Paul argues against them:
But not all things are helpful . . . I will not be dominated by anything (6:12).
God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (6:13).
This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up (8:1).
If anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? (8:10).
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain (15:13-14).
Furthermore, Peppiatt points out, Douglas Campbell (who writes the foreword to her book) has made a 1,200 page case hinging on the idea that Romans 1:18-3:20 contains many of the words of Paul's rival, words which have been mistaken as Paul's own view ever since (The Deliverance of God). And before Douglas Campbell's book we had Stanley Stowers telling us that Greek manuscripts were first transmitted in scripto continua, a kind of writing that no only lacks punctuation, but even spaces between words (A Rereading of Romans). If Paul alternated his own words with those of his opponents in some of his diatribes, later readers might not grasp the literary technique and might confuse whose voice is behind the various phrases and arguments.
Lest anyone claim that Peppiatt (or Campbell or Stowers) can use this phenomenon to strike simply any verses they find offensive from Paul, there is a methodology for recognizing likely recitations of the words of others in a letter. Those employing this "speech in character" technique which Paul is using follow a basic pattern. There is a shift in the logic or a noticeable contradiction between one set of statements and another. For example, when we read "all things are lawful for me but not all things are helpful," one way to read this is to assume Paul agrees with all of it. This would contradict numerous statements in Paul's letter about things that are definitely not "lawful." Another way to read it is that Paul undermines the first part of the saying with the second. He is not really agreeing with the initial statement but is showing with a second argument that it is false.
Likewise, in three passages in particular, the triple focus of Peppiatt's book, she shows that this pattern exists. The argument in 11:2-16 has its turning point in the "nevertheless" of vs. 11. The debate about speaking in tongues in 14:20-25 turns on vs. 23's "if then." The argument over the role of women in worship in 14:26-39 turns on Paul's rhetorical question in vs. 36, "Did the word of God originate with you?" In each of these three texts, what comes after the turning point subverts and refutes the arguments of the Corinthian men that come in the first part.
You see, Peppiatt is convinced the problem in Corinth is some gifted but domineering men. The usual theory is the opposite, that some wild women of Corinth are flouting social customs. Some say the problem was women going about bareheaded in public and/or in worship. Some say it was about hairstyles, not headcoverings, and women were using their "freedom in Christ" to justify letting their hair down. And some argue that a woman with her hair down was advertising her body as available for sex, as prostitutes would do. Is Paul mainly trying to bring some wild women of Corinth under control?
Peppiatt is hard to ignore when she says that she can much more easily imagine the following scenario than the commonly assumed wild women of Corinth storyline:
The Corinthian church was being dominated by a group of spiritually gifted and highly articulate teachers who were both overbearing and divisive men. Under their influential leadership, certain oppressive practices had been implemented, and other destructive and selfish practices had remained unchallenged. It was they who believed . . . that men and women should display signs of their own status before God, one another, and the angels in worship. Because, according to Genesis 2, women were created second, the Corinthians were teaching they have a secondary place in the creation order, deriving their glory not directly from Christ, but from man. For this reason to wear a sign of authority/subjection/honor on their "heads." As man is the glory of Christ, and Christ is the "head" of man, however, he must display this glory by remaining bareheaded. I imagine these men could have been both powerful and forceful, pronouncing the "word of God," laying down the law, and arguing that if a woman was bareheaded this was tantamount to appearing before God as a prostitute and thus shaming the men, the angels, and God himself -- she may as well appear shaven (pgs. 81-82).
The avid Bible reader may recognize that in this description Peppiatt has captured many themes from throughout Paul's letter. Her reconstruction has a major advantage in eliminating a host of difficulties. Interpretive problems in these three texts of 1 Corinthians include, as she details on pages 62-63:
Whether one of the issues is headcoverings or hairstyles.
What is the source of the shame being caused by whatever custom is being practiced?
How Paul can interpret Genesis in this way (which seems like a shoddy exegesis).
Whether Paul is referring to all men and women or only married ones.
What the historical situation and customs were (commentators only can speculate as there is no clear historical context that makes sense of these texts).
How the angels are involved (and if they are, how can churches today claim this was cultural and need not be observed anymore?).
How the inconsistencies between 11:2-10 and 11:11-16 can be explained.
Why Paul insists this policy is implemented in "all the churches."
To summarize her conclusions, suffice it to say that if the reader will assume some of the words are not Paul's a consistent and logical reading is possible. Paul is not worried about shame at all. He says the apostles are "last of all" and are "a spectacle to the whole cosmos" (4:8-13). The congregational gatherings, especially the Lord's Supper is supposed to be a place that levels social differences (11:22) and divisions (11:18). God's way is not to worry about the honor of important people, but to choose the "foolish to shame the wise" (1:27). Our current bodies are dishonorable (15:43) but will be glorious in the future. People in Messiah are one in Spirit, baptized into the same fellowship, whether slave or free, Jewish or Greek (12:13). The male, dominant teachers in Corinth have devised a number of arguments justifying some of their practices which deviate from what Paul taught them. With regard to women they have come up with a chain of logic that goes something like this:
Adam was created by God alone but women by God from man.
Men, therefore, are the glory of God but women the glory of man.
A man, therefore, should bear his head as God is directly above him.
A woman, therefore, should cover her head (or wear her hair up) as a sign of submission to men (or her husband).
If a woman will not cover her head, her hair should be shorn!
Woman was created for the needs of man, another reason for submission.
Angels are watching and any sign of sexual looseness (bare head/unbound hair) in women shames them.
From these arguments the men also deduced that women must be silent in the worship and discussion of the teachings.
Paul refutes their arguments and teaches them otherwise:
It is illogical to say that woman should have her head shaved if she does not cover it in worship (11:6).
You forget that man and woman are mutually interdependent (11:11-12), so don't pretend women are inferior to men.
Don't your own social customs suggest that long hair is more appropriate to women? If so, then look, the woman already has her head covered! (11:15). So give up this ridiculous requirement.
Your headcovering (or hair-binding) requirement is moot, there is no such custom in the congregations of God (11:16).
You say women must be silent in the congregation, but are you prophets giving new laws from God now? (14:36).
How did this word come to you and to no one else, including the apostles? (14:36-37).
What I, Paul, am writing to you is the Lord's command (14:37; that all should prophesy, including daughters, as per Joel 3:1 (2:28)).
Stop trying to dominate others in matters of worship, speaking in languages, and prophesying, but do all in order and with inclusiveness (14:38-39).
Peppiatt's argument is powerful and thorough, in a way that this book review can only approximate. Her text is readable and enjoyable, if at times, repetitive. Her final statement on pages 136-137 about the servant-like nature the congregations should exhibit ("the cruciform shape of the church") in imitation of Messiah is worth the price of the book.
One minor complaint is that Cascade books has utterly failed in the editing process. Through some computer error, in numerous places throughout the book, scripture references are incomplete and numbers are missing (to the point of there being blank spaces in the book). Hopefully this will be corrected in a second printing.
September 27, 2021
I really loved Peppiatt's Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women, and she didn't go fully into her arguments about 1 Corinthians there because she'd already published this book. Peppiatt serves the New Testament tea hot, and were I an NT scholar, I'm sure I'd have lots of responses to her work, but as I'm not, I simply enjoyed it and appreciated the chance to read the "problem passages" (chapters 11 and 14) in a new way.
There is no consensus on how to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Even those who buy into "women should be silent in church" as a prescription don't prohibit women from singing aloud in worship. Those who share the same interpretive outcomes often take very different routes of getting there. Peppiatt's core argument is that Paul is quoting and refuting the Corinthians as a means of correcting their worship practices. At the end, she provides her own translation and punctuation of the passages, showing where she thinks Paul is quoting and what are his own words. While this is in an appendix, I found it helpful to read before starting the rest of the book, so I can place where Peppiatt's thoughts are falling as she engages with other scholars. She engages a lot with other scholars, even while providing her own arguments.
At the end of the day, however, I am not a New Testament scholar. I really appreciate getting to know Peppiatt's arguments on 1 Corinthians better, and like with her first book, I can have a constructive devotional experience with these passages that have only given me trouble in the past. To spiritualize it, Peppiatt reads these passages in line with the liberating work of the Holy Spirit to Gentiles and enslaved people in the New Testament, thus interpreting these texts in a way confluent with the rest of Paul's writings. She doesn't make Paul a feminist (oh, the anachrony!) nor does she dismiss him as oppressive. Instead, she reads him as a dynamic man of God who could be harsh and kind in the same breath. And if that doesn't encapsulate the writings of our favorite bow-legged, bald, unibrow-ed apostle (Paul as described by the early church, not Peppiatt), I don't know what does.
"I question, however, whether it really is easier to imagine a group of wild and rebellious women who are so uncontrollable that they need the intervention of the apostle than it is to imagine the existence of a group of spiritually gifted and highly articulate male teachers who were both overbearing and divisive men. I propose that in a relentlessly patriarchal society, it is more plausible to believe the latter might be the case, that under the men's influential leadership, certain oppressive practices had been implemented, and other destructive and selfish practices had remained unchallenged." (10) flashes back to the days of Mark Driscoll
There is no consensus on how to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 and 14. Even those who buy into "women should be silent in church" as a prescription don't prohibit women from singing aloud in worship. Those who share the same interpretive outcomes often take very different routes of getting there. Peppiatt's core argument is that Paul is quoting and refuting the Corinthians as a means of correcting their worship practices. At the end, she provides her own translation and punctuation of the passages, showing where she thinks Paul is quoting and what are his own words. While this is in an appendix, I found it helpful to read before starting the rest of the book, so I can place where Peppiatt's thoughts are falling as she engages with other scholars. She engages a lot with other scholars, even while providing her own arguments.
At the end of the day, however, I am not a New Testament scholar. I really appreciate getting to know Peppiatt's arguments on 1 Corinthians better, and like with her first book, I can have a constructive devotional experience with these passages that have only given me trouble in the past. To spiritualize it, Peppiatt reads these passages in line with the liberating work of the Holy Spirit to Gentiles and enslaved people in the New Testament, thus interpreting these texts in a way confluent with the rest of Paul's writings. She doesn't make Paul a feminist (oh, the anachrony!) nor does she dismiss him as oppressive. Instead, she reads him as a dynamic man of God who could be harsh and kind in the same breath. And if that doesn't encapsulate the writings of our favorite bow-legged, bald, unibrow-ed apostle (Paul as described by the early church, not Peppiatt), I don't know what does.
"I question, however, whether it really is easier to imagine a group of wild and rebellious women who are so uncontrollable that they need the intervention of the apostle than it is to imagine the existence of a group of spiritually gifted and highly articulate male teachers who were both overbearing and divisive men. I propose that in a relentlessly patriarchal society, it is more plausible to believe the latter might be the case, that under the men's influential leadership, certain oppressive practices had been implemented, and other destructive and selfish practices had remained unchallenged." (10) flashes back to the days of Mark Driscoll
October 11, 2023
(Sorry, long preambIe! Skip skip skip) I originally read this book in 2021, when I originally rated it 4 stars. It was definitely interesting, if not totally convincing, but I thought some of the implications drawn out would would be a bit much for the average Christian.
After milling about in hinterlands of adjacents issues and then into other areas in the last two years - I came across another work which prompted me to re-read it. And this time, with some more understanding gleaned from the few years, I had to up this to the full 5 stars!
Three reasons for that: 1) it's short, but not simplistic 2) even if one doesn't adopt the reading, even with healthy dose of "novel-approach-skepticism", it's simplicity and explanatory power are strong , and 3) something I only appreciated the second time round is the sheer amount of secondary literature Peppiat is in conversation with. The volume alone is impressive. Just from what I know personally and picked up as I read the book - she freely interacts with Payne's "Men and Women, One in Christ" (500 pages), Campbell's "The Deliverence of God" (1250 pages), and Wright's "Paul and the Faithfulness of God (1600 pages) in such a way that you wouldn't even realise. Handling ~3300 pages at anytime is impressive, nevermind with the idiosyncrasies of some of the authors and ideas in those specific titles. As an aside as far as I understand, Campbell's own larger thesis has not been persuasive and not sure how much the foreward helps a lay reader.
Enough preamble - actual review:
So in this short book - Peppiat provides a somewhat novel way of interpretating Saint Paul the Apostle's statements in one of his letters - contained in the Bible - to a group of Christian believers in the city of Corinth. This is arguably the letter of Paul containing the most (textual) conundrums for the reader.
She does this specifically as it relates to his views of Women, and what (if anything) that communicated about his views of male-female relations in general, and male-female interactions specifically in Christian worship. This is important, because for the Christian who accepts the New Testament as God's Word (as Peppiat does), this has potential implications not just for Church practice for Christians today - but also raises questions about how faithful we are being to God if we neglect the practices defined.
But there are already (allegedly) perfectly good understandings of this, are there not? You have the choice between a view emphasizing a difference in roles (sometimes referred to as complementarian), or a view emphasizing similarity in roles (sometimes called egalitarian) - both (allegedly) claiming equal value! Well - unfortunately not - argues Peppiat. She claims both typical modern positions based on the text don't really work:
"Ultimately, the traditional approach to the text, so I shall argue, leaves the reader with very few options for rescuing Paul from misogyny, or inconsistency, or bad theology, or all three." [p33]
"What I am attempting to demonstrate in this book is that if we take a traditional view of the passages in question then it is difficult to avoid either an offensive theology of gender, or the conclusion that Paul is confused at times and double-minded at others. I have opted for a reading of Paul that avoids either of these conclusions because I believe the weight of evidence against these views is compelling" [p134]
A large bulk of the book is Peppiat painstakingly addressing why she believes various positions do not work. However being very fair (I would say) with her interlocutors, and very honest about conclusions she draws, and bringing out the points if agreement also. Peppiat covers A LOT of ground here, and it can get dense at times.
This is also the section where it is going to be toughest to go along with Peppiat, as some may find (for whatever reason), some of the current views not as dissatisfying as she does herself. I shall list some of the key issues presented in the book below. These are not simply diversions, these are atleast 9 key issues with which the readings must contend, regardless of the view taken:
1) Does the text refer to an article of clothing worn on the head "head covering/vale" or does the text refer to "hair styles". The Greek phrase is either "having down from the head" or "having down on the head". Scholarship remains divided.
2) What precisely was the reason for it being shameful? The ambiguity around attire practices - both scriptural and historically reconstructed remains an issue.
3) Is the issue related to Differentiation, or Subordination?
4) It appears, despite protest, that Paul's Creation theology in 11:7-9 is incompatible with his own "in the Lord" theology, which he refers to in the same course of argumentation
5) Does the passage refer to men and women in general, or does the passage refer primarily to husbands and wives?
6) The historical reconstructions that we are dependant on for Corinth still remain speculative and are subject to change
7) How is one to understand the inclusion of angels in the argument? Supernatural or natural? Benevolent, ambivalent, or malevolent? Observing or participating? Testimonial or tempted?
8) What is the relationship between the arguments presented in 11:2-10 and 11:11-16. Linear? Tension? Paradox? Is one meant to override or undermine the other?
9) Why (if he is) is Paul so adamant this must be implemented in all Churches? [p62-63]
In addition, in what seems like a pedantic aside, Peppiat raises a point I agree wholeheartedly with about the accuracy or fairness of the language we use to describe these modern dichotomous positions, and how misleading they are / can be:
"I use the word "egalitarian" in relation to others' arguments to describe a view of Paul's position only because it is a word that is understood to mean a belief that men and women are (a) created equally and (b) equally able to participate in all areas of ministry and service in the church. To use it thus, however, only in relation to gender is, I believe, an aberrative use of the word. All Christians should be "egalitarians" without question on the basis that Christians believe all human beings are equally made "in the image of God", all are equally "sinners", and those who are saved are all equally saved. Similarly, to use "egalitarian" in opposition to "complementarian" is to employ two misnomers at once. "Complementarians" would more accurately be designated subordinationists, while most "egalitarians" could happily co-opt the term "complementarian," on the basis that male and female are deemed to complement one another in their difference in mutual and reciprocal relations." [p24n6]
For these reasons, aswell as what Peppiat sees as a deficiency in many modern inteprative methods, she puts forward a new proposal. Simply, her proposal is this: what if Paul is simply quoting from, and responding to the views of his OPPONENTS, and not presenting his own views in large sections of 1 Corinthians 11-14? Given the lack of quotation marks are in the original language - how does our understanding from how letters and speeches, and arguments were crafted in Paul's day help us identify what he is really saying?
I will quote Peppiat at length here to show her proposal, which is helpfully laid out visually in an appendix (that is somewhat unhelpfully at the very end of the book rather than at any point in earlier):
"It is already universally accepted that he quotes some Corinthian slogans in 1 Corinthians in order to make a point. These verses include 6:12, 13; 7:1; 8:1, 8:4; 10:23; and 15:12." [...] "What if Paul was using a strategy throughout 1 Corinthians 11-14 where he cites his opponents' views from their letter in a more extended fashion in order to refute them, and what if he was doing this more than had previously been acknowledged?
In this book, I argue that Paul is doing precisely that.[...] That Paul uses rhetoric in his letters is undisputed. That he uses a particular form of rhetoric in these three passages has not yet been generally accepted. I explore the possibility that within 11:2-16, 14:20-25 and 14:33b-36 there are Corinthian ideas, expressions, and theology that have been incorporated and woven into the text among Paul's own ideas, expressions, and theology, and that Paul has done this in such a way as to construct powerful Pauline arguments against the Corinthian practices of head coverings for women, speaking in tongues all at once, and banning married women from speaking out in worship services. I demonstrate that reading Paul in this way not only yields coherent arguments within each passage itself, but that these arguments then accord with the letter as a whole, and with the theology found in the wider Pauline corpus" [p4-5]
Some of this is based upon rather basic - but often underappreciated - point that the presumptions we make when we "imagine" or reconstruct something often reflect our own biases. Due to this, we can often fall short of actually finding the most compelling scenario to "imagine" as we try to interpret the text faithfully.
One of the interpretive moves that Peppiat takes is that rather than imagining that the behaviour of women to suddenly became the issue for this section of the correspondence, what if at the core it is the same Corinthian leaders who were (probably much more likely to be) men that we hear about elsewhere? Once again, Peppiat is insightful:
"When reading accounts of historical reconstructions, we are often told that "it is easy to imagine" this or that. It is not always clear, however, what we are being asked to imagine. If we think, for example, that Paul is referring to a real and not a hypothetical situation with the men, it is not clear whether we are to imagine that the leaders were forcing men to wear head coverings, or that the men in the ekklesia [Church] were wearing head coverings in opposition to the leaders" [p40]
"Most commentators who take part in the process of "imagining" what might have been the case in Corinth when we attempt to piece together the text in conjunction with what we know of the culture. I have to admit that personally I find it easy to imagine a different scenario that I would describe in the following way: the Corinthian church was being dominated by a group of spiritually gifted and highly articulate teachers who were both overbearing and divisive men. Under their influential leadership, certain oppressive practices had been implemented, and other destructive and selfish practices had remained unchallenged." [p81]
This point is in my opinion, made all the more convincing when we consider the actual culture which this congregation was formed and influenced by. Some primary source quotations which were instructive in the worldview of the of the classic west:
- "the female is a deformed male" (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 737a and 775a).
- "Do you know, then, of anything practiced by mankind in which the masculine sex does not surpass the female on all these points? ... [The] one sex is far surpassed by the other in everything, one may say... the woman is weaker than the man" (Plato, Republic 5.455c-e).
- " [I am grateful] ... that I was born a human and not a beast, then a man and not a women, and thirdly a Greek and not a Barbarian" (Thales, Thales 1.33 in Diogenes Laertius' Lives of Eminent Philosophies)
Peppiat summarises it the following way:
"I have not yet found any commentator who does not acknowledge that this culture had [...] a 'broadly misogynist streak.' Women were inferior to men. Poor women were doubly inferior. They were conditioned that way, and no doubt many women believed it to be truly the case." [p68]
It doesn't exactly seems like Paul is communicating something that is consistent with this. However, if this is what was actually believed previously by his congregation, it is quite difficult indeed to imagine such a widescale "feminist" rebellion - although in a city like Corinth, I suppose anything is possible.
Although, in fairness, given the Corinthian believer's apparent belief that their freedom as Christian gave them the license to unbind themselves from any kind of cultural shackles, it is possible that could have been in motivating factor in something like this. Especially in a congregation(s) with an over emphasis of supernatural signs as the basis of belief.
Peppiat once again pushes back on this majority view of the issue being primarily aimed at the women, and not the men in the congregation:
"Either we have to imagine that these women who have been brought in this culture have become completely uncontrolled and uncontrollable, up or that the entire church (men and women) had abandoned Paul's teaching and practices on gender differentiation in some way. Why is this any easier to imagine in first-century Corinth than to imagine that there might have been a group of powerful and spiritually gifted men, who in Paul's absence implemented teaching and practices that reinforced a particular hierarchical view of men and women based on a creation theology of derivation? What is easier to imagine than converts reverting to their cultural norms and pre-Christian world views? If this were to be the case, why would Paul not want to liberate women (a) from bad theology in relation to their status in Christ and (b) from an oppressive practice?" [p69]
The above was simply one example of the kind of knotty issues which Propose discusses in the book, whilst outlining the strength/alternative of her proposal. It is a brilliant meshing of not only theological - but primarily biblical - argumentation which I didn't expect as my understanding prior to reading was that Peppiat was more of a professional theologian than textual exegete!
A phenomenal read of a pretty tantalising proposal, which rather than reinventing the wheel has just applied an already invented and accepted wheel slightly further. Although I'm not an even on the road to being able to evaluate the strength of the rhetorical claims made.
As I mentioned earlier, not everyone will be convinced of her proposal but the discussion in the book of various other proposals warrants the book on its own right.
Also the rationale of "this doesn't sound like what Paul would say" (paraphrase) isn't the most convincing, especially when we could be wrong about what "Paul would say".
In addition, I'm not sure the kind of "Egalitarian readings move into some kind of soft complementarianism, and most complementarian readings don't go far enough consistently, and if they did would be probably extremely problematic or heretical" (paraphrase) is quite as compelling as suggested. I do think some readings on both sides are quite feasible, if not ultimately convincing. It is clear Peppiat has a deep appreciation for Scripture, Christ's body and Paul.
After milling about in hinterlands of adjacents issues and then into other areas in the last two years - I came across another work which prompted me to re-read it. And this time, with some more understanding gleaned from the few years, I had to up this to the full 5 stars!
Three reasons for that: 1) it's short, but not simplistic 2) even if one doesn't adopt the reading, even with healthy dose of "novel-approach-skepticism", it's simplicity and explanatory power are strong , and 3) something I only appreciated the second time round is the sheer amount of secondary literature Peppiat is in conversation with. The volume alone is impressive. Just from what I know personally and picked up as I read the book - she freely interacts with Payne's "Men and Women, One in Christ" (500 pages), Campbell's "The Deliverence of God" (1250 pages), and Wright's "Paul and the Faithfulness of God (1600 pages) in such a way that you wouldn't even realise. Handling ~3300 pages at anytime is impressive, nevermind with the idiosyncrasies of some of the authors and ideas in those specific titles. As an aside as far as I understand, Campbell's own larger thesis has not been persuasive and not sure how much the foreward helps a lay reader.
Enough preamble - actual review:
So in this short book - Peppiat provides a somewhat novel way of interpretating Saint Paul the Apostle's statements in one of his letters - contained in the Bible - to a group of Christian believers in the city of Corinth. This is arguably the letter of Paul containing the most (textual) conundrums for the reader.
She does this specifically as it relates to his views of Women, and what (if anything) that communicated about his views of male-female relations in general, and male-female interactions specifically in Christian worship. This is important, because for the Christian who accepts the New Testament as God's Word (as Peppiat does), this has potential implications not just for Church practice for Christians today - but also raises questions about how faithful we are being to God if we neglect the practices defined.
But there are already (allegedly) perfectly good understandings of this, are there not? You have the choice between a view emphasizing a difference in roles (sometimes referred to as complementarian), or a view emphasizing similarity in roles (sometimes called egalitarian) - both (allegedly) claiming equal value! Well - unfortunately not - argues Peppiat. She claims both typical modern positions based on the text don't really work:
"Ultimately, the traditional approach to the text, so I shall argue, leaves the reader with very few options for rescuing Paul from misogyny, or inconsistency, or bad theology, or all three." [p33]
"What I am attempting to demonstrate in this book is that if we take a traditional view of the passages in question then it is difficult to avoid either an offensive theology of gender, or the conclusion that Paul is confused at times and double-minded at others. I have opted for a reading of Paul that avoids either of these conclusions because I believe the weight of evidence against these views is compelling" [p134]
A large bulk of the book is Peppiat painstakingly addressing why she believes various positions do not work. However being very fair (I would say) with her interlocutors, and very honest about conclusions she draws, and bringing out the points if agreement also. Peppiat covers A LOT of ground here, and it can get dense at times.
This is also the section where it is going to be toughest to go along with Peppiat, as some may find (for whatever reason), some of the current views not as dissatisfying as she does herself. I shall list some of the key issues presented in the book below. These are not simply diversions, these are atleast 9 key issues with which the readings must contend, regardless of the view taken:
1) Does the text refer to an article of clothing worn on the head "head covering/vale" or does the text refer to "hair styles". The Greek phrase is either "having down from the head" or "having down on the head". Scholarship remains divided.
2) What precisely was the reason for it being shameful? The ambiguity around attire practices - both scriptural and historically reconstructed remains an issue.
3) Is the issue related to Differentiation, or Subordination?
4) It appears, despite protest, that Paul's Creation theology in 11:7-9 is incompatible with his own "in the Lord" theology, which he refers to in the same course of argumentation
5) Does the passage refer to men and women in general, or does the passage refer primarily to husbands and wives?
6) The historical reconstructions that we are dependant on for Corinth still remain speculative and are subject to change
7) How is one to understand the inclusion of angels in the argument? Supernatural or natural? Benevolent, ambivalent, or malevolent? Observing or participating? Testimonial or tempted?
8) What is the relationship between the arguments presented in 11:2-10 and 11:11-16. Linear? Tension? Paradox? Is one meant to override or undermine the other?
9) Why (if he is) is Paul so adamant this must be implemented in all Churches? [p62-63]
In addition, in what seems like a pedantic aside, Peppiat raises a point I agree wholeheartedly with about the accuracy or fairness of the language we use to describe these modern dichotomous positions, and how misleading they are / can be:
"I use the word "egalitarian" in relation to others' arguments to describe a view of Paul's position only because it is a word that is understood to mean a belief that men and women are (a) created equally and (b) equally able to participate in all areas of ministry and service in the church. To use it thus, however, only in relation to gender is, I believe, an aberrative use of the word. All Christians should be "egalitarians" without question on the basis that Christians believe all human beings are equally made "in the image of God", all are equally "sinners", and those who are saved are all equally saved. Similarly, to use "egalitarian" in opposition to "complementarian" is to employ two misnomers at once. "Complementarians" would more accurately be designated subordinationists, while most "egalitarians" could happily co-opt the term "complementarian," on the basis that male and female are deemed to complement one another in their difference in mutual and reciprocal relations." [p24n6]
For these reasons, aswell as what Peppiat sees as a deficiency in many modern inteprative methods, she puts forward a new proposal. Simply, her proposal is this: what if Paul is simply quoting from, and responding to the views of his OPPONENTS, and not presenting his own views in large sections of 1 Corinthians 11-14? Given the lack of quotation marks are in the original language - how does our understanding from how letters and speeches, and arguments were crafted in Paul's day help us identify what he is really saying?
I will quote Peppiat at length here to show her proposal, which is helpfully laid out visually in an appendix (that is somewhat unhelpfully at the very end of the book rather than at any point in earlier):
"It is already universally accepted that he quotes some Corinthian slogans in 1 Corinthians in order to make a point. These verses include 6:12, 13; 7:1; 8:1, 8:4; 10:23; and 15:12." [...] "What if Paul was using a strategy throughout 1 Corinthians 11-14 where he cites his opponents' views from their letter in a more extended fashion in order to refute them, and what if he was doing this more than had previously been acknowledged?
In this book, I argue that Paul is doing precisely that.[...] That Paul uses rhetoric in his letters is undisputed. That he uses a particular form of rhetoric in these three passages has not yet been generally accepted. I explore the possibility that within 11:2-16, 14:20-25 and 14:33b-36 there are Corinthian ideas, expressions, and theology that have been incorporated and woven into the text among Paul's own ideas, expressions, and theology, and that Paul has done this in such a way as to construct powerful Pauline arguments against the Corinthian practices of head coverings for women, speaking in tongues all at once, and banning married women from speaking out in worship services. I demonstrate that reading Paul in this way not only yields coherent arguments within each passage itself, but that these arguments then accord with the letter as a whole, and with the theology found in the wider Pauline corpus" [p4-5]
Some of this is based upon rather basic - but often underappreciated - point that the presumptions we make when we "imagine" or reconstruct something often reflect our own biases. Due to this, we can often fall short of actually finding the most compelling scenario to "imagine" as we try to interpret the text faithfully.
One of the interpretive moves that Peppiat takes is that rather than imagining that the behaviour of women to suddenly became the issue for this section of the correspondence, what if at the core it is the same Corinthian leaders who were (probably much more likely to be) men that we hear about elsewhere? Once again, Peppiat is insightful:
"When reading accounts of historical reconstructions, we are often told that "it is easy to imagine" this or that. It is not always clear, however, what we are being asked to imagine. If we think, for example, that Paul is referring to a real and not a hypothetical situation with the men, it is not clear whether we are to imagine that the leaders were forcing men to wear head coverings, or that the men in the ekklesia [Church] were wearing head coverings in opposition to the leaders" [p40]
"Most commentators who take part in the process of "imagining" what might have been the case in Corinth when we attempt to piece together the text in conjunction with what we know of the culture. I have to admit that personally I find it easy to imagine a different scenario that I would describe in the following way: the Corinthian church was being dominated by a group of spiritually gifted and highly articulate teachers who were both overbearing and divisive men. Under their influential leadership, certain oppressive practices had been implemented, and other destructive and selfish practices had remained unchallenged." [p81]
This point is in my opinion, made all the more convincing when we consider the actual culture which this congregation was formed and influenced by. Some primary source quotations which were instructive in the worldview of the of the classic west:
- "the female is a deformed male" (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 737a and 775a).
- "Do you know, then, of anything practiced by mankind in which the masculine sex does not surpass the female on all these points? ... [The] one sex is far surpassed by the other in everything, one may say... the woman is weaker than the man" (Plato, Republic 5.455c-e).
- " [I am grateful] ... that I was born a human and not a beast, then a man and not a women, and thirdly a Greek and not a Barbarian" (Thales, Thales 1.33 in Diogenes Laertius' Lives of Eminent Philosophies)
Peppiat summarises it the following way:
"I have not yet found any commentator who does not acknowledge that this culture had [...] a 'broadly misogynist streak.' Women were inferior to men. Poor women were doubly inferior. They were conditioned that way, and no doubt many women believed it to be truly the case." [p68]
It doesn't exactly seems like Paul is communicating something that is consistent with this. However, if this is what was actually believed previously by his congregation, it is quite difficult indeed to imagine such a widescale "feminist" rebellion - although in a city like Corinth, I suppose anything is possible.
Although, in fairness, given the Corinthian believer's apparent belief that their freedom as Christian gave them the license to unbind themselves from any kind of cultural shackles, it is possible that could have been in motivating factor in something like this. Especially in a congregation(s) with an over emphasis of supernatural signs as the basis of belief.
Peppiat once again pushes back on this majority view of the issue being primarily aimed at the women, and not the men in the congregation:
"Either we have to imagine that these women who have been brought in this culture have become completely uncontrolled and uncontrollable, up or that the entire church (men and women) had abandoned Paul's teaching and practices on gender differentiation in some way. Why is this any easier to imagine in first-century Corinth than to imagine that there might have been a group of powerful and spiritually gifted men, who in Paul's absence implemented teaching and practices that reinforced a particular hierarchical view of men and women based on a creation theology of derivation? What is easier to imagine than converts reverting to their cultural norms and pre-Christian world views? If this were to be the case, why would Paul not want to liberate women (a) from bad theology in relation to their status in Christ and (b) from an oppressive practice?" [p69]
The above was simply one example of the kind of knotty issues which Propose discusses in the book, whilst outlining the strength/alternative of her proposal. It is a brilliant meshing of not only theological - but primarily biblical - argumentation which I didn't expect as my understanding prior to reading was that Peppiat was more of a professional theologian than textual exegete!
A phenomenal read of a pretty tantalising proposal, which rather than reinventing the wheel has just applied an already invented and accepted wheel slightly further. Although I'm not an even on the road to being able to evaluate the strength of the rhetorical claims made.
As I mentioned earlier, not everyone will be convinced of her proposal but the discussion in the book of various other proposals warrants the book on its own right.
Also the rationale of "this doesn't sound like what Paul would say" (paraphrase) isn't the most convincing, especially when we could be wrong about what "Paul would say".
In addition, I'm not sure the kind of "Egalitarian readings move into some kind of soft complementarianism, and most complementarian readings don't go far enough consistently, and if they did would be probably extremely problematic or heretical" (paraphrase) is quite as compelling as suggested. I do think some readings on both sides are quite feasible, if not ultimately convincing. It is clear Peppiat has a deep appreciation for Scripture, Christ's body and Paul.
February 8, 2025
By far the most compelling interpretation of these confusing passages that I’ve read. The topic of women in the church (in particular) is a hard one that has - for me at least - involved a lot of personal and theological wrestling. I’ve not really been compelled too much one way or the other by egalitarian or complementarian interpretations, but I’ve been fraught in an uncomfortable residing in the middle, wanting to be faithful to Scripture and yet wrestling with how some of these passages fit into what the rest of the Bible seems to communicate about women. Peppiatt doesn’t address 1 Tim or Eph here, but she has at least offered a well-argued interpretation that clears up a lot of mystery, is obviously a work of faithfulness to the Bible, and helps ease my own troubled conscience. (Not in a cheap but like one of those “aha” moments where everything suddenly appears clear.) In short, her argument just makes so much sense.
July 18, 2025
Did not quite finish the book…
December 20, 2023
In Women and Worship at Corinth, Lucy Peppiatt has attempted to provide a freeing way forward from the trudgery of the many misty, murky interpretations of some truly difficult passages in 1 Corinthians.
Specifically, she argues for a reading of Paul in chapters 11 and 14 that’s sees Paul using a method of rhetorical argumentation where he is quoting the Corinthians and then responding to them. Simply put, she advocates for adding some quotation marks in these chapters to signify that some sections are not Paul’s words.
I think many of her arguments are very powerful. But, the true force of her work lies in the simple fact that this rhetorical reading provides a wholistic solution to unifying Paul’s theology and comments in other parts of the Bible.
Also, she approaches the text in such a balanced and careful way. You don’t get the thought that she has some axe to grind or some agenda to push (which, let’s be honest, that’s what we usually get in these discussions). Instead, she seems to truly care about the correct interpretation of a confusing passage.
My one complaint is that I wish she would have provided us with more detail about the history of translators adding quotation marks in Paul’s writings. The original Greek does not include punctuation. And we all basically agree that Paul often quotes other people in his letters. So, it would be nice to know how scholars arrived at a consensus for those translation choices. Then, if she could show that chapters 11 and 14 also share similar characteristics with those other agreed-upon quotations, it would really strengthen her argument.
All in all, this book has been enlightening and given me a lot of joy, hope, and plenty to think about.
Specifically, she argues for a reading of Paul in chapters 11 and 14 that’s sees Paul using a method of rhetorical argumentation where he is quoting the Corinthians and then responding to them. Simply put, she advocates for adding some quotation marks in these chapters to signify that some sections are not Paul’s words.
I think many of her arguments are very powerful. But, the true force of her work lies in the simple fact that this rhetorical reading provides a wholistic solution to unifying Paul’s theology and comments in other parts of the Bible.
Also, she approaches the text in such a balanced and careful way. You don’t get the thought that she has some axe to grind or some agenda to push (which, let’s be honest, that’s what we usually get in these discussions). Instead, she seems to truly care about the correct interpretation of a confusing passage.
My one complaint is that I wish she would have provided us with more detail about the history of translators adding quotation marks in Paul’s writings. The original Greek does not include punctuation. And we all basically agree that Paul often quotes other people in his letters. So, it would be nice to know how scholars arrived at a consensus for those translation choices. Then, if she could show that chapters 11 and 14 also share similar characteristics with those other agreed-upon quotations, it would really strengthen her argument.
All in all, this book has been enlightening and given me a lot of joy, hope, and plenty to think about.
November 10, 2023
I am nearly convinced. This is a fantastic book on first Corinthians 11. The author is a thoughtful, thorough, and humble scholar. I’ve been reading about women in Corinth off and on for the last few months and have concluded that if it confused St John Chrysostom then I should allow it to confuse me. That being said I think Peppiatt’s work needs a seat at the table, not only for the depth of her scholarship, but also for her skilled work at holding theology and exegesis in close conversation. If you are talking about 1 Corinthians 11 and have not read her work, you are doing a disservice to your listeners.
December 8, 2022
Obviously, it took me a long time to get through this book. Lucy Peppiatt is far more educated and far more intelligent than I, so I had to wade slowly. There were several occasions where I wished I knew some level of Biblical Greek, as it would’ve been helpful where she left things untranslated (ironically, for the sake of clarity) and I was left to figure out what Greek word she was explaining.
Other than that, this book is in general very intellectual and requires much deep thought. It’s also extremely controversial and requires the Baptist complementarian reader to wrestle with things in a new way. I found many of the arguments and evidences put forth by Peppiatt to be convincing and enlightening, though I also just found this book pretty confusing —again, very intellectual and often interlaced with Greek.
I am glad I read it, but I don’t think I have gained many more answers from it-only more questions. Maybe in a few years I’ll come back and read it again. Until then, I look forward to more Peppiatt books and teaching that might be a little more my level.
Other than that, this book is in general very intellectual and requires much deep thought. It’s also extremely controversial and requires the Baptist complementarian reader to wrestle with things in a new way. I found many of the arguments and evidences put forth by Peppiatt to be convincing and enlightening, though I also just found this book pretty confusing —again, very intellectual and often interlaced with Greek.
I am glad I read it, but I don’t think I have gained many more answers from it-only more questions. Maybe in a few years I’ll come back and read it again. Until then, I look forward to more Peppiatt books and teaching that might be a little more my level.
July 25, 2023
3.5⭐️ Paul is just one of the girlies
October 30, 2022
OUTSTANDING!! As with her previous book, she has no axe to grind. She is respectfully asking the appropriate questions of the text. The EXACT SAME questions I have been asking for 30 years. Something in this section is just not right. This has nothing at all to do with modern feminism. The exegetical gymnastics that are required in these three chapters in order to make sense out of them require a flexibility that I just don’t have. However, reading them the way Lucy Peppiat does resolves all the issues, and suddenly they all make sense in their own context but also in the larger context of the NT.
March 2, 2021
If you are interested in working through what the New Testament has to say about women's roles in worship and the church, I highly recommend this book. Dr. Peppiatt makes the most compelling argument to make sense of three difficult passages (head coverings, tongues and prophecy, and the silencing passage) in 1 Corinthians that I've heard.
What piqued my interest in Peppiatt's thesis was actually how it reconciled the contradiction in logic on Paul's passage about tongues and prophecy in chapter 14, detailing which gift was meant for which audience (believers vs. unbelievers). This passage has made little sense to me for a long time, and no solution I have read has been satisfying. That is, until I read Peppiatt's solution, which fits the context and makes so much sense.
The beautiful thing about her solution, however, is that it doesn't just relieve the tension for one passage, but rather it reconciles the tension for three different passages with one overall explanation. Why are women allowed to speak in chapter 11 but silenced in chapter 14? Why does Paul say that women are the glory of man, while men are the image and glory of God? Is Paul arguing for women to wear a head covering, or telling them they don't have to? All these questions (and many more) are addressed and satisfactorily reconciled with one guiding explanation: Paul is quoting (and refuting) Corinthian ideas in his letter.
Dr. Peppiatt works through traditional interpretations of the head covering passages, points out where they don't work and the logical implications of the traditional view to demonstrate the true problem that the text presents us with. Then she goes on to address that problem head-on and detail her solution to the problem. And the explanatory power of her argument speaks for itself.
Dr. Peppiatt comes to an ironic conclusion: the very passage that has been so long used to silence women is actually Paul's argument against silencing women in the church. Once it is suggested that Paul is addressing certain (probably male, or at least male lead) groups in the congregation that are trying to elevate themselves and keep others under them, then the whole argument fits the context of the letter as a whole perfectly.
Dr. Peppiatt's solution is compelling because 1) it resolves a multitude of tensions in the text without appealing to multiple explanations, 2) it fits the context of the letter and the culture of the Corinthian church well, and 3) there are textual and broader cultural clues that tune us into what Paul is doing with his rhetorical style.
I highly recommend this book for consideration in the discussion of women's roles in the chruch.
What piqued my interest in Peppiatt's thesis was actually how it reconciled the contradiction in logic on Paul's passage about tongues and prophecy in chapter 14, detailing which gift was meant for which audience (believers vs. unbelievers). This passage has made little sense to me for a long time, and no solution I have read has been satisfying. That is, until I read Peppiatt's solution, which fits the context and makes so much sense.
The beautiful thing about her solution, however, is that it doesn't just relieve the tension for one passage, but rather it reconciles the tension for three different passages with one overall explanation. Why are women allowed to speak in chapter 11 but silenced in chapter 14? Why does Paul say that women are the glory of man, while men are the image and glory of God? Is Paul arguing for women to wear a head covering, or telling them they don't have to? All these questions (and many more) are addressed and satisfactorily reconciled with one guiding explanation: Paul is quoting (and refuting) Corinthian ideas in his letter.
Dr. Peppiatt works through traditional interpretations of the head covering passages, points out where they don't work and the logical implications of the traditional view to demonstrate the true problem that the text presents us with. Then she goes on to address that problem head-on and detail her solution to the problem. And the explanatory power of her argument speaks for itself.
Dr. Peppiatt comes to an ironic conclusion: the very passage that has been so long used to silence women is actually Paul's argument against silencing women in the church. Once it is suggested that Paul is addressing certain (probably male, or at least male lead) groups in the congregation that are trying to elevate themselves and keep others under them, then the whole argument fits the context of the letter as a whole perfectly.
Dr. Peppiatt's solution is compelling because 1) it resolves a multitude of tensions in the text without appealing to multiple explanations, 2) it fits the context of the letter and the culture of the Corinthian church well, and 3) there are textual and broader cultural clues that tune us into what Paul is doing with his rhetorical style.
I highly recommend this book for consideration in the discussion of women's roles in the chruch.
July 15, 2021
This book is probably worth some brief comments of review from me, for I rated it highly. This is not meant to be an endorsement of conclusions, as Peppiatt and I would disagree on many, many points.
However, this book needs to be taken seriously. Peppiatt is a thoughtful, serious writer, and this book will almost certainly become a benchmark of egalitarian thought and doctrine in the years to come. She is slow, careful, and avoids offensive or name-calling in her treatment of other writers. All this I can appreciate. Of course, as well, we should say that her ideas are plausible. For it is true that Paul quotes the Corinthians in this letter and then rebukes or corrects their stances. So she is proposing something that should be genuinely considered as a possible reading of the text.
However, there are concerns with this book that may underpin some of the problems with it.
First, as Peppiatt herself says in the last chapter, your precommitments and thoughts about Paul will absolutely shape what you do with these Corinthian texts that cause us to all stop, pause, and do slow work to gain some understanding. One troubling fact is that Peppiatt is committed to liberating Paul from what she would view as an "offensive theology", namely that Paul could be some kind of person who would hold to some form of subordinationism, patriarchy, misogony, or any other title one may give it. The very fact that she feels Paul is in need of a sort of rescue of being allied to "offensive theology" is a strong pre-commitment that needs to be understood first.
She never establishes whether subordinationism, patriarchy, etc. are necessarily "offensive" in the first place and this would be important.
This, importantly, relates to her view that in 1 Cor. 11 that there is a re-reading in the text of creation accounts with the woman being derivative of man and being his "glory" because she came from him. Peppiatt says this is troubling, but, aside from a few raised questions, never firmly establishes that the reading of Gen 1 & 2 is not one that can be a valid reading. She tends to give weight to Gen. 1 and very little to Gen. 2 in terms of talking about male/female relationships. But this again probably goes back to her pre-commitments.
Another issue with this book would be that Peppiatt rightly highlights the difficulty with making readings based on cultural contexts -- something both egalitarians and complementarians need to recognize -- yet, she establishes a cultural context where there are these authoritarian men who are lording themselves over women. While she does try to highlight why she thinks this and raises interesting textual observations, they hardly are conclusive and this is a constructed social context within which she reads all of her texts.
This is a bit ironic considering that most egalitarians dismiss 1 Tim. 2:11-15 as cultural because of the strong priestesses that could be associated in cultural worship there. Is that "likely" that women would have power in that culture of the church in Ephesus? Can we even determine likelihood of these things? Yet Peppiatt does have as one of her pegs on which to hang her theological hat this cultural context that can neither be proven nor disproven, but the reading depends on it in some ways. This should be noticed and effect how strongly we take her conclusions in.
In addition, she also clearly wants to suggest that 1 Cor. 11, if re-read as she likes it, would do more in what women are allowed to do in worship than the argument can bear. For example, she basically and briefly says that women should clearly be able to preach because if they are able to prophesy in 1 Cor. 11 and in Eph. 4 prophets are a gift given before preachers, then why would women be barred from a lesser gifting?
But in this, she assumes that prophecy continues, though she never really defines it. And, even if prophecy does continue, she never does square how this text, if re-read, would harmonize with 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which seems a striking omission since her re-reading is clearly a larger work on gender in worship, as the title pushes at.
Finally, while she does have a plausbile reading with the quotations, it is such an ambitious reading and she suggests it for so many verses that it would be a quite large block to start re-reading in new light in our day and age. I know that she addresses this and this is not a surefire defeat of her argument in the slightest. It is merely to suggest that she chooses her quotations based more on where she sees Paul as logically inconsistent, rather than choosing them based on literary tools and evaluations. I know there are works in progress and already out that do more to try and make literary arguments for how to read these, but Peppiatt would have done well to try and help the reader know how to read this. For if she is right here and Paul is doing it more than we think, then we may have many more places to find Paul doing it throughout his letters. We need a way of consistently reading Paul, it seems, that would allow us to not just do this any time he seems "offensive" or "garbled" in his thinking.
These are some of the major objections I would have with the book and I only highlight them to say that, while Peppiatt is absolutely serious, we need to be careful when we read things.
That all said, and if you've pushed through my negative comments, I do want to end with commendations. Peppiatt raises hard questions that complementarians need to hear. Honestly, complementarians may too easily cherry pick verses in these passages and not grapple with some very serious questions Peppiatt raises. We may even need to be willing to think about whether or not we are ignoring head coverings in worship. Are we so pre-committed to the offensiveness that it may be right that we will find any cultural context or reading to escape that conclusion? Then we would fall prey to the same kind of pre-committed theology that Peppiatt has. She exposes this and I think she will demand that all readers take more looks at 1 Cor. 11 and consider what it teaches.
She also does some great work on the verses about headship and how God being the head of Christ is both similar and dissimilar to them man being the head of the woman. We may not want to commit the fallacy where we import all possible meanings of words into a word just because we read it. Instead, we should take these words in stride, and I think that Peppiatt's interactions with Chyrsostom are helpful here.
On that note, I also think she convincingly shows that "man" and "woman" may easily be translated as "husband" and "wife" in this text. I think that is helpful and while it leaves us with questions about the role of single women in church, their obligations, etc. it still may drive us forward to start thinking "husband" and "wife" more often.
All this to say, I think this book is easily worth a read. I think it is serious literature. I think Peppiatt seems to have a genuine desire to serve Christ. That said, I think her pre-commitments and some of her overtures in the argument are not as substantiated as it may seem. Is what she says plausible? Yes. Should it make us pause and read more seriously some of the harder Pauline texts that I think exist? Yes. Does it conclusively mean that we have misread Paul for millennium? I do not think she has done enough work to overturn that yet, and far more will have to be done before we should consider this a crossing of the Rubicon in theology.
However, this book needs to be taken seriously. Peppiatt is a thoughtful, serious writer, and this book will almost certainly become a benchmark of egalitarian thought and doctrine in the years to come. She is slow, careful, and avoids offensive or name-calling in her treatment of other writers. All this I can appreciate. Of course, as well, we should say that her ideas are plausible. For it is true that Paul quotes the Corinthians in this letter and then rebukes or corrects their stances. So she is proposing something that should be genuinely considered as a possible reading of the text.
However, there are concerns with this book that may underpin some of the problems with it.
First, as Peppiatt herself says in the last chapter, your precommitments and thoughts about Paul will absolutely shape what you do with these Corinthian texts that cause us to all stop, pause, and do slow work to gain some understanding. One troubling fact is that Peppiatt is committed to liberating Paul from what she would view as an "offensive theology", namely that Paul could be some kind of person who would hold to some form of subordinationism, patriarchy, misogony, or any other title one may give it. The very fact that she feels Paul is in need of a sort of rescue of being allied to "offensive theology" is a strong pre-commitment that needs to be understood first.
She never establishes whether subordinationism, patriarchy, etc. are necessarily "offensive" in the first place and this would be important.
This, importantly, relates to her view that in 1 Cor. 11 that there is a re-reading in the text of creation accounts with the woman being derivative of man and being his "glory" because she came from him. Peppiatt says this is troubling, but, aside from a few raised questions, never firmly establishes that the reading of Gen 1 & 2 is not one that can be a valid reading. She tends to give weight to Gen. 1 and very little to Gen. 2 in terms of talking about male/female relationships. But this again probably goes back to her pre-commitments.
Another issue with this book would be that Peppiatt rightly highlights the difficulty with making readings based on cultural contexts -- something both egalitarians and complementarians need to recognize -- yet, she establishes a cultural context where there are these authoritarian men who are lording themselves over women. While she does try to highlight why she thinks this and raises interesting textual observations, they hardly are conclusive and this is a constructed social context within which she reads all of her texts.
This is a bit ironic considering that most egalitarians dismiss 1 Tim. 2:11-15 as cultural because of the strong priestesses that could be associated in cultural worship there. Is that "likely" that women would have power in that culture of the church in Ephesus? Can we even determine likelihood of these things? Yet Peppiatt does have as one of her pegs on which to hang her theological hat this cultural context that can neither be proven nor disproven, but the reading depends on it in some ways. This should be noticed and effect how strongly we take her conclusions in.
In addition, she also clearly wants to suggest that 1 Cor. 11, if re-read as she likes it, would do more in what women are allowed to do in worship than the argument can bear. For example, she basically and briefly says that women should clearly be able to preach because if they are able to prophesy in 1 Cor. 11 and in Eph. 4 prophets are a gift given before preachers, then why would women be barred from a lesser gifting?
But in this, she assumes that prophecy continues, though she never really defines it. And, even if prophecy does continue, she never does square how this text, if re-read, would harmonize with 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which seems a striking omission since her re-reading is clearly a larger work on gender in worship, as the title pushes at.
Finally, while she does have a plausbile reading with the quotations, it is such an ambitious reading and she suggests it for so many verses that it would be a quite large block to start re-reading in new light in our day and age. I know that she addresses this and this is not a surefire defeat of her argument in the slightest. It is merely to suggest that she chooses her quotations based more on where she sees Paul as logically inconsistent, rather than choosing them based on literary tools and evaluations. I know there are works in progress and already out that do more to try and make literary arguments for how to read these, but Peppiatt would have done well to try and help the reader know how to read this. For if she is right here and Paul is doing it more than we think, then we may have many more places to find Paul doing it throughout his letters. We need a way of consistently reading Paul, it seems, that would allow us to not just do this any time he seems "offensive" or "garbled" in his thinking.
These are some of the major objections I would have with the book and I only highlight them to say that, while Peppiatt is absolutely serious, we need to be careful when we read things.
That all said, and if you've pushed through my negative comments, I do want to end with commendations. Peppiatt raises hard questions that complementarians need to hear. Honestly, complementarians may too easily cherry pick verses in these passages and not grapple with some very serious questions Peppiatt raises. We may even need to be willing to think about whether or not we are ignoring head coverings in worship. Are we so pre-committed to the offensiveness that it may be right that we will find any cultural context or reading to escape that conclusion? Then we would fall prey to the same kind of pre-committed theology that Peppiatt has. She exposes this and I think she will demand that all readers take more looks at 1 Cor. 11 and consider what it teaches.
She also does some great work on the verses about headship and how God being the head of Christ is both similar and dissimilar to them man being the head of the woman. We may not want to commit the fallacy where we import all possible meanings of words into a word just because we read it. Instead, we should take these words in stride, and I think that Peppiatt's interactions with Chyrsostom are helpful here.
On that note, I also think she convincingly shows that "man" and "woman" may easily be translated as "husband" and "wife" in this text. I think that is helpful and while it leaves us with questions about the role of single women in church, their obligations, etc. it still may drive us forward to start thinking "husband" and "wife" more often.
All this to say, I think this book is easily worth a read. I think it is serious literature. I think Peppiatt seems to have a genuine desire to serve Christ. That said, I think her pre-commitments and some of her overtures in the argument are not as substantiated as it may seem. Is what she says plausible? Yes. Should it make us pause and read more seriously some of the harder Pauline texts that I think exist? Yes. Does it conclusively mean that we have misread Paul for millennium? I do not think she has done enough work to overturn that yet, and far more will have to be done before we should consider this a crossing of the Rubicon in theology.
November 25, 2020
Admittedly most of this book was a bit over my head.
However Lucy did a great job taking a very complex issue and making it mostly accessible to the non-scholar.
Some might be skeptical of this book as perverting the Bible or something like that. I myself am always a bit like that when reading a book about the bible. However Lucy is very honest and true to scripture. She does a great job of summarizing the various traditional and currently held understandings of 1 Corinthians 11-14 and also sums up the somewhat glaring problems for each of these views.
She then goes on to suggest an alternate way of reading the letter. The final view that Lucy puts forward is very compelling and makes sense of the original greek while also eliminating the inferior view of women that is often taught from these chapters.
I also very much appreciated Lucy's honesty in acknowledging that her view is a possible interpretation and that it is far from 'proven'. In fact, it seems likely that we will never know the full original meaning of Paul as we are missing so much information. However Lucy's argument is far more logical and allows chapters 11-14 to fit into scripture rather than stand in opposition to the rest of the bible.
Read it, even if you disagree it is helpful to know the difficulty in interpreting the letter of 1 Corinthians.
However Lucy did a great job taking a very complex issue and making it mostly accessible to the non-scholar.
Some might be skeptical of this book as perverting the Bible or something like that. I myself am always a bit like that when reading a book about the bible. However Lucy is very honest and true to scripture. She does a great job of summarizing the various traditional and currently held understandings of 1 Corinthians 11-14 and also sums up the somewhat glaring problems for each of these views.
She then goes on to suggest an alternate way of reading the letter. The final view that Lucy puts forward is very compelling and makes sense of the original greek while also eliminating the inferior view of women that is often taught from these chapters.
I also very much appreciated Lucy's honesty in acknowledging that her view is a possible interpretation and that it is far from 'proven'. In fact, it seems likely that we will never know the full original meaning of Paul as we are missing so much information. However Lucy's argument is far more logical and allows chapters 11-14 to fit into scripture rather than stand in opposition to the rest of the bible.
Read it, even if you disagree it is helpful to know the difficulty in interpreting the letter of 1 Corinthians.
Read
October 14, 2022Basic idea: some of the most controversial passages related to women that Paul wrote have been debated for centuries with little agreement on what he's saying, and how the church today should apply them. He can seem to contradict himself within a passage itself, and also with himself when taking all his letters as a whole. The author explores the hypothesis that perhaps he's at times quoting Corinthian thinking from letters they wrote him, and then responding. There were not quotation marks in biblical greek (so Paul couldn't have used them), and yet our Bible translators have added quotation marks in other parts of his letters where there is agreement that he was quoting Corinthian thinking and then responding to it (see 1 Corinthians 6:12). So perhaps he did it more than what we have currently agreed upon, and that would resolve his "contradictions"? She lays out her idea of where Corinthians are "talking" and where Paul is responding for the challenging passages of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, 14:20-25, and 14:26-39. She seems to build a good case with lots of research. Too bad I could hardly follow her. It reads like a college dissertation with assumptions that you know things like ancient biblical greek. Yikes. I started skimming. Nevertheless, I get her basic premise (one she didn't make up by the way, but has dug into deeply) and I hope she's right!
April 3, 2018
An excellent and exhaustive treatment of the interpretive difficulties of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (and a briefer treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35).
Peppiatt clearly demonstrates, I feel, the problems that develop when we assign all of the words in these passages as being representative of Paul’s own thinking; a method that always results in some form hierarchical understanding of the relationships between men and women (and that also leaves Paul being rather garbled and self-contradictory with what he says elsewhere is this letter and his other epistles).
Instead, Peppiatt puts forward a better way of reading the text by outlining Paul’s rhetorical method of engaging with the views of the leadership at Corinth; I.e. That Paul is quoting his opponent’s views, showing their illogical conclusions before finally refuting them and bringing clarification. This method brings about a greater consistency with Paul’s wider themes within the letter to 1 Corinthians, his wider, non-hierarchical teaching on male/female status in the body of Christ, and Paul’s practice of working alongside women to establish and lead churches.
Overall: Bravo! Definitely required reading for grappling with 1 Corinthians.
Peppiatt clearly demonstrates, I feel, the problems that develop when we assign all of the words in these passages as being representative of Paul’s own thinking; a method that always results in some form hierarchical understanding of the relationships between men and women (and that also leaves Paul being rather garbled and self-contradictory with what he says elsewhere is this letter and his other epistles).
Instead, Peppiatt puts forward a better way of reading the text by outlining Paul’s rhetorical method of engaging with the views of the leadership at Corinth; I.e. That Paul is quoting his opponent’s views, showing their illogical conclusions before finally refuting them and bringing clarification. This method brings about a greater consistency with Paul’s wider themes within the letter to 1 Corinthians, his wider, non-hierarchical teaching on male/female status in the body of Christ, and Paul’s practice of working alongside women to establish and lead churches.
Overall: Bravo! Definitely required reading for grappling with 1 Corinthians.
April 4, 2025
Coming into this book knowing the nature of this argument, I came with the point of view that I would learn but would not be convinced. I mostly enjoyed the fact that this is the first time I've seen someone genuinely argue against head coverings in a theological sense which isn't just blatantly disregarding the text and what it clearly says.
Although the argument can seem wooly to infer quotations and refutations into the text, Lucy does a great job of explaining the need for a different translation. Highlighting the issues, contradictions and points of confusion as not things to be ignored or find a way to wiggle round the meaning of and find some other way to read it.
Although I am not fully convinced about not observing head coverings, this book has made a very compelling argument for how it is not necessary and how, in the early church, it could have been detrimental.
Although the argument can seem wooly to infer quotations and refutations into the text, Lucy does a great job of explaining the need for a different translation. Highlighting the issues, contradictions and points of confusion as not things to be ignored or find a way to wiggle round the meaning of and find some other way to read it.
Although I am not fully convinced about not observing head coverings, this book has made a very compelling argument for how it is not necessary and how, in the early church, it could have been detrimental.
May 30, 2024
Fascinating. I feel I am almost convinced, and admittedly (by the author herself) that’s about as good as it can get. Peppiatt’s handling of the text, familiarity with the leading views and lengthy commentaries on Corinthians, coupled with the brevity of the book and the humility with which it was written all make this work deserving of a standing ovation.
Admittedly, though, I don’t feel I’m smart enough to adequately review this book, so I’ll leave it at that (and re-read it in the not-too-distant future).
Please read this book. It’s not for the faint of heart! But it is incredibly compelling. Finally — a work that wrestled with the holes I’ve poked in Paul for a long time, while making me love the word of God more.
Admittedly, though, I don’t feel I’m smart enough to adequately review this book, so I’ll leave it at that (and re-read it in the not-too-distant future).
Please read this book. It’s not for the faint of heart! But it is incredibly compelling. Finally — a work that wrestled with the holes I’ve poked in Paul for a long time, while making me love the word of God more.
September 19, 2023
A masterful book examining the contested passages in 1 Corinthians 11-14 that appear to restrict women from speaking in Church and require them to wear head coverings. The traditional arguments make no sense, so Peppiatt proposes an elegant solution - what if Paul is in conversation with the toxic leaders of this community (as we know he was) and is using rhetoric to quote their faulty ideas and refute them with good, liberating theology? In this view Paul’s argument becomes the strongest possible one in support of women’s full equality in the Church, in Christ. A powerful and convincing work.
October 13, 2025
Rather than presenting Paul as inconsistent or restrictive, Peppiatt argues that he is quoting and refuting the patriarchal voices within the Corinthian church. Her rhetorical reading explains the long-standing tension between Paul’s affirmation of women praying and prophesying in chapter 11 and the command for silence in chapter 14. In her view, Paul isn’t silencing women, he’s challenging those who were trying to.
I found Peppiatt’s argument both textually coherent and theologically restorative. She reads Paul within the context of a new-creation community, where men and women stand in mutual dependence and serve together in worship.
I found Peppiatt’s argument both textually coherent and theologically restorative. She reads Paul within the context of a new-creation community, where men and women stand in mutual dependence and serve together in worship.
June 29, 2020
This book is a fantastic treatment of, primarily, 1Cor 11:2-16 and, secondarily, 1 Cor 14:20-25 & 33b-36. These are all some very confusing and controversial passages. Peppiatt handles them masterfully. She surveys the historical attempts (and, frankly, failures) to interpret them, and offers her own solution. She is very careful to say what can and cannot be proven. Her solution is one that maintains the integrity of the passage and their phrasing, the surrounding contexts, the general sense and flow of the whole letter, and the teachings of Paul in his other letters. Absolutely brilliant!
October 25, 2019
Very important work here
This is an excellent assessment of problematic texts in Paul’s writings regarding the relationship between men and women in the church. It is a compelling argument. Peppiatt’s conclusions are, rightfully, acknowledged to be far from provable but they are without doubt worth considering. Her restructure of the texts at the end based upon her rhetorical reading is a satisfying conclusion to a carefully constructed argument.
This is an excellent assessment of problematic texts in Paul’s writings regarding the relationship between men and women in the church. It is a compelling argument. Peppiatt’s conclusions are, rightfully, acknowledged to be far from provable but they are without doubt worth considering. Her restructure of the texts at the end based upon her rhetorical reading is a satisfying conclusion to a carefully constructed argument.
April 13, 2024
Good arguments presented here for the reading of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians…particularly focused on chapters 11-14 and the teachings regarding women and speaking in tongues.
However, caution to those considering reading. This is includes highly technical almost thesis-like writing. The Greek words included are not transliterated and can be confusing to those without Greek knowledge.
Great source of others material for further study.
However, caution to those considering reading. This is includes highly technical almost thesis-like writing. The Greek words included are not transliterated and can be confusing to those without Greek knowledge.
Great source of others material for further study.
July 18, 2021
An excellent compact academic examination of the contradicting passages in 1 Corinthians. Peppiatt highlights the wealth of opinions on these passages, while also offering an alternative reading that ensures that Paul is consistent, the letter is unified in message, and that the lowly are elevated while the proud are brought low. The gospel of unity, love, and wholeness permeates this book.
August 26, 2024
If you’ve ever wondered why at times in 1 Corinthians Paul sounds like he’s contradicting himself, specifically as it pertains to women in ch 11 & 14 and tongues/prohesy in 14 then you’re likely to find this short and detailed book incredibly helpful. I certainly enjoyed it, and will be bringing up her argument in many future conversations with friends and church members.
March 12, 2021
I'll have to come back and write a fuller review later but this book was recommended on one of the Bible Project's recent episodes--it interrupted my reading schedule but in such a good way. The title is rather self-descriptive, but suffice to say this reframed, or perhaps gave me a more solid frame for the way I understand the 1 Corinthians passages. I recommend it both for its content and its brevity--though it is necessarily academic it is short! I wish others could deliver and defend their points so succinctly :)
November 26, 2018
Recommended
The author makes a compelling case that Paul is arguing against the Corinthians when it comes to head coverings and keeping women silent.
The author makes a compelling case that Paul is arguing against the Corinthians when it comes to head coverings and keeping women silent.
April 13, 2020
The most convincing perspective on 1 Corinthians 11 that I’ve read. And Lucy Peppiatt is just really cool.
May 11, 2021
Highly academic and well researched rhetorical reading of 1 Corinthians passages
June 28, 2021
Not sure if I'm convinced -- but extremely persuasive nonetheless.
July 14, 2021
Rad
Good shit Lucy! ! ! A++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J
Good shit Lucy! ! ! A++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews