The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God's Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality

by Philip B. Payne

A biblical defense of egalitarianism that relies on Scripture to affirm gender equality in the church and in the home. "Biblical womanhood" is the idea that the Bible teaches God-ordained male leadership and female submission in the home and subordination in the church. Some say this hierarchy of authority is sufficiently evidenced by examples of male leadership (and lack of female leadership) in the Bible: the first human was male, Israel's official priests were male, most authors of Scripture were male, Jesus was male and chose twelve male Apostles. God is addressed as Father. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands. In The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood , New Testament scholar Philip B. Payne argues that the very Bible passages that are often believed to teach male headship and female subordination actually teach gender equality. He demonstrates that the Bible does not endorse gender hierarchy but instead emphasizes: These concepts are examined in 14 Bible passages throughout the Old and New Testaments, using careful exploration of Greek and Hebrew word meanings, historical and cultural context, and examples from Scripture. Payne defends his position by providing detailed answers to common objections at the end of each chapter. The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood is for those struggling to reconcile the Bible's seemingly contradictory teachings about man and woman. Readers will come away with greater confidence in the reliability of Scripture's consistent, harmonious message of gender equality.

Genres: Nonfiction, Theology, Christian, Faith, Religion, Feminism, Womens

256 pages, Paperback

First published April 4, 2023

About the author

Philip Barton Payne, the founder and president of Linguist’s Software, is a specialist in New Testament Studies. He is well known for his studies on New Testament Textual Criticism, the Parables of Jesus, and Man and Woman in the Teachings of Paul. He and his wife Nancy were missionaries in Japan with the Evangelical Free Church, where they ministered to students in the Kyoto Christian Studies Center and lectured on New Testament in various Japanese Seminaries. Phil started Linguist’s Software in 1984 in response to requests for the Greek, Hebrew, and Japanese fonts he had created for use in his studies and ministry. His company now sells fonts supporting more than 2600 languages. Phil and Nancy have three children David, Kimiko, and Brendan.

Reviews

[Sheila Gregoire · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book from a scholar who seriously knows his stuff!

The book opens with WHY women's equality and mutuality matters. Payne shows that he isn't trying to throw the Bible out, but instead his intention is to take it very seriously--and throughout the book he shows his immense knowledge of the Biblical texts, the original languages, the oldest manuscripts, and the context of the time.

The book then goes through chronologically all of the passages that are often used to limit women, while he then deals with the objections that are often brought up, one by one.

His scholarship is so thorough that the NIV translation committee even amended their translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 based on his findings.

Thoroughly recommend this as a scholarly yet easy to read treatise on the wonderful way that God actually sees women.

[Christina C · Rating 5 out of 5]

This will be my "go-to" reference book on the subject of "Biblical womanhood". Having read several books, listened to a few podcasts, and read not a few scholarly articles on the key "women" passages I still found myself with a lot of questions about translation and interpretation. This book addressed all my outstanding questions with scholarly evidence without being overly academic. 


Each chapter reviews one of the key passages addressing translation, interpretation, and reviews word studies and text criticsm where appropriate. Each chapter also answers several "objections" questions to the arguments made. While having an understanding of the original languages and text criticism will make a reader appreciate the work the author put into his review of each passage more meaningful, such knowledge is not needed to read and understand this book.


Noteworthy is that the NIV revision committee accepted the authors research and proposed change to 1 Timothy 2 which I believe speaks to the quality of the research done. This book holds Scripture high while recognizing that it is from the original languages and the original texts that we should be seeking to make decisions on doctrine.

[E.M. Welcher]

This is one of those books where the author divides verses into small sections and says each word in Greek should be translated with a synonym and that the totality of the synonyms equal the verse having the opposite meaning of what everyone thought it meant.

The author may have some personal issues with complementarian scholars he once worked with.

There is a story about his father dying on a mountain climb his wife told him not to go on. This is the fault of complementarianism.

Payne takes the position that the false teachers in Ephesus were women. This is why Paul banned all women in Ephesus from teaching.

There are a lot of far fetched translations and historical contexts (which cannot be proven, only postulated) which must all line up for the conclusions in this book to pan out.

I think it best to reject the major erroneous premise that a complementarian reading of the Bible automatically means inequality and subjugation, while continuing to read the Scriptures and obey them without adding man made and unjust prohibitions to them.

[Grace J · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. It's incredibly detailed and researched, but there were just a few areas where I felt the argument was a bit weak.

This book is a condensed version of Payne’s book “Man and Woman, One in Christ” and you can tell. It's like drinking syrup concentrate. It's thick and potent and packed. There are no fluffy words. My college professors would be proud.

That makes it a slow read but very informative. Payne doesn't argue from analogy or illustration but by looking at the original language and wrestling with the best translation of every passage. Each page took me minutes as I tried to grasp the Greek words and then reference the original passage and then study the cross-reference and then take notes.

One of my biggest takeaways is that translating the Bible isn't as easy as I thought, and some of the passages I assumed made very obvious statements about women are actually much less certain in the original language.

[Carolyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly recommended! Really solid, well-researched book. I was enthralled with Payne’s discussion of translation and history—and the evidence that some of the scriptural passages used to isolate women in ministry may not have been original to Paul!

This was definitely a scholarly read; I recommend it for those who have already done some work and are ready to dig particularly into the ancient Greek language.

This book was marketed as being for those starting to question “Biblical womanhood” as a concept, but I would actually recommend reading some Rachel Held Evans by means of introduction, followed by Barr’s “The Making of Biblical Womanhood” for digestible historical context before digging into Payne.

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. Reeling from this confrontation of so many teachings I was taught were "Biblical" and relegated me to being a second class citizen at home and church. I'm so thankful this book was recommended to me to help give me understanding of the understanding I've been coming to over the past few years.

[Derek Fekkes · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a pastor and teacher, I want to not only read books supporting my convictions, but also ones that present opposing viewpoints. I don’t assume whatever theological “camps” or positions I align with get everything right; I know that I am susceptible to reading my own assumptions into Scripture, or being deceived by sin; and, ultimately, I want to let Scripture speak for itself. Furthermore, in my teaching I want to fairly and truthfully represent opposing viewpoints.

I have spent considerable time studying what the Bible says about men’s and women’s roles in the home and in the church, and the arguments and interpretations presented by both the complementarian and egalitarian positions.

In this spirit, I was thankful for someone gifting me The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality, by Philip B. Payne. Three things stood out to me:

First, much of Payne’s conclusions about the nature of men and woman, and of how a healthy marriage functions, I would not only agree with, but would heartily affirm (as would all the complementarians I know). His conclusion lists “10 Biblical Principles that Entail Gender Equality.” They are:

1. Male and female are equally created in God’s image
2. Male and female equally received the creation mandate and blessing
3. Redeemed men and women are equally “in Christ”
4. Church leadership as service
5. Mutual submission in the church and home
6. The oneness of the body of Christ
7. The priesthood of all believers
8. The Spirit gifts all believers
9. Liberty in Christ
10. In Christ, male and female are equal

To most of his explanations of these things, my response was “Yes and amen!” Regarding #5, while I believe the Bible calls wives to submit to their husbands as head of the marriage, and don’t think the Bible anywhere calls husbands to “submit” to their wives in this sense, I wouldn’t much argue the contention that there ought to be a general submission among believers (Eph. 5:11 could be taken this way), and this includes between husbands and wives (without negating the distinct roles of husbands and wives).

These 10 concluding points make me think that he doesn’t really understand the complementarian position. This seems to be confirmed by other statements in the book. For example, he gives the example of his father’s tragic passing climbing Mount Fuji. The day he went was a “miserable, rainy day” and his wife, as well as Philip and his wife urged him not to go, “but he was adamant.” Philip conclude: “Dad died on Mount Fuji because he believed that he, as head of his wife, had the right to do as he chose with no obligation to submit to his wife” (123).

This statement is so far from what most complementarians believe, and so far from their vision and heart for marriage. Yes, in Ephesians 5, we read that wives are to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord,” and that “the husband is the head of the wife.” But we also read that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies,” being one who “nourishes and cherishes” their wives. The headship of a husband is not a self-seeking “right to do as he (chooses),” but a self-sacrificing nourishing—working for the wife’s health and flourishing—and cherishing—enjoying and delighting in.

The heart of the complementarian position is not about husbands doing as they choose, having a claim on their time and energy and resources without recourse to their wife. It is about God calling husbands to take responsibility for their wives, leading them in what is good, protecting them from what is evil, and going to great lengths to see that they thrive. And doing all this under the rule of God, as one who will give an account to God.

Second, it seems quite clear that Payne works from an assumption that any distinction in leadership among men and woman is incompatible with biblical concepts of equal worth and dignity, oneness in Christ, and freedom in Christ. It should be readily acknowledged by all believers that anytime we approach Scripture with a belief of how things must be, or that two things that appear contradictory must in fact be contradictory, we are bound to find ourselves opposing Scripture at points. We would naturally come to Scripture claiming that God cannot be three persons in one. Most in our culture would naturally come to Scripture claiming that if God is love, he would not send people to hell, and he would support gay marriage.

But just as our limited, fallen minds would be incorrect in these assumptions, so there is no a priori basis for saying that any distinction in leadership among men and women negates equality and dignity, oneness and freedom. Surely Payne knows that complementarians adamantly support the equal worth, dignity, oneness and freedom of men and women.

But he says things like:

“Now, some proponents of gender hierarchy claim that they believe men and women are equal: they are both made in the image of God, have equal worth in God’s sight, and so on. But when it comes to the everyday practice of leadership and use of power, they do not treat women as equal to men.” (pg. xxii-xxiii)

Rather than presenting any argument for why a leadership role reserved for men negates equality, he just assumes this to be the case.

Does this mean that all leadership and authority negates equality? Even if the Bible did permit women to be pastors, does this mean that the men and women who served as pastors would not be equal in worth and dignity and freedom before God compared to those under their leadership? What about the various other qualifications Scripture gives for pastor/elders: Are those who don’t meet these qualifications not equal in worth, dignity and freedom?

I guess one argument would be: But those qualifications are based on skill, knowledge, and experience, on things one has control over, not based on a built-in, unchangeable fact like one’s gender. But Scripture is replete with examples of God calling certain individuals and groups to roles not based on their qualifications over against others, but based on his choice (the Israelites, the Levites, the 12 Apostles, Paul).

If God ordains various leadership roles in society (which all seem to agree), and calls various individuals to those roles for his purposes, it does not follow that such individuals—whomever they are, from whatever groups they may come, whatever qualifications God may give us for determining them—are greater in worth, value, or liberty. And surely we don’t want to deny that God has the right to ordain various leadership roles, and, if God’s people are going to have a part in identifying and installing individuals to those roles, has the right to provide various qualifications for us to abide by.

Third, Payne’s interpretation methods are often not very faithful to the text, and seem intent on making the text say what he wants it to say. Now, some of the texts in question are notoriously difficult, and a range of interpretations have been presented. And for some particular aspects of these, it can be hard to be fully satisfied with any interpretations (I think of the head coverings passage in 1 Corinthians 11).

But other passages are quite clear in their meaning, and it is completely understandable how Christians for centuries have come away from the Bible BOTH affirming the equal dignity and worth of men and women (including in cultures where this was not the case) AND observing a call for men to lead in the church and home.

For example, Payne’s argument for 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (“women should keep silent in the church”) is that it’s not part of Paul’s original writing, but was added later.

His argument for 1 Peter 3:1-7 (“wives, be subject to your own husbands”) is that this is focused on wives with unbelieving husbands, and so “is not describing an ideal Christian community.” While the context makes clear that wives with unbelieving husbands are included in the command, there is no evidence that it limits it to them.

His argument for 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man”) is that the “fundamental problem (is) of women who are not properly trained,” and that “the only people 1 Timothy identifies as deceived by the false teachings are women.” This conclusion requires a huge leap in logic. If Paul wanted to say that his words were merely addressing a local problem of untrained women, he surely could have made this clear, and he surely wouldn’t have included verses 13-15, grounding his commands in the objective reality of creation.

As I read arguments and statements from those in the egalitarian camp, I am often left wondering if they have had any experience with godly complementarians. Because much of what they seem intent on correcting is straw-man. Yes, of course there are loads of men—whatever their claims to Christ—who take leadership and authority to mean something God never intends it to mean, and deny the equal worth, value and dignity of men and women.

But those men are not a picture of the complementarian position, but its abuse. And there are abundant examples of complementarian marriages and churches that—I would contend—present a very beautiful, compelling picture of men’s and women’s complementarian roles in the home and church.

And I have found the leaders in such contexts to be as much against sins of abuse and domination and manipulation and selfishness in husbands as anyone else, if not more so. Such that the arguments and statements I come across from egalitarians make me want to say, “I’m not sure the enemy is who you think it is.”

We can debate the meanings of certain difficult passages of Scripture, sure. And we might not come to the same conclusions. But let’s be careful not to misrepresent one another.

The subtitle of Jonathan Leeman’s recent book Authority is a good description of how complementarians understand God’s intention for authority, including the authority of husbands and pastors: “How Godly Rule Protects the Vulnerable, Strenthens Communities, and Promotes Human Flourishing.”

Yes, there is real authority involved in this, real responsibility, real leadership and, at times, a real making of decisions. But it is not a self-seeking, self-serving, independent, unrestrained, and unaccountable kind of authority. This is especially the case in marriage, where there is a God-given oneness to the relationship. As Leeman says,

“The very purpose of a husband’s authority is to lead his wife… towards oneness…. the husband is trying to draw his wife towards oneness. He is seeking to do that in a compelling, loving, gentle, patient, understanding way.” (Footnote 1)

Elsewhere he says,

“Cultivating oneness means approaching all of life in partnership with your spouse. Both husband and wife do this, but the husband should feel the responsibility to initiate it.” (pg. 171)

And then,

“This central emphasis of oneness is something that distinguishes a husband’s authority from every other form of authority… It is tragic, then, how often pastors hear from wives who feel neglected by their husbands, either because they spend long hours at work or because they’re emotionally absent when home. Such husbands have abandoned their first duty: seeking oneness with their wives.” (pg. 172)

This is the heart of the complementarian position, and I find it not only the most natural reading of the biblical text, but also the most compelling picture of God’s wisdom and goodness and self-giving love, with which he rules over us.

Footnote 1: https://www.crossway.org/articles/wha...

[Olivia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philip B. Payne after writing this, probably (and deservedly):

Interesting to hear Payne’s alternative takes on some of the other egalitarian interpretations I’ve already encountered. After a very brief Internet browse, it appears that there is some debate over certain aspects of his scholarship, but I still appreciate the information and analyses he offers here. I obviously don’t have the qualifications to rule on which arguments hold the most academic water, but it’s certainly a fascinating field of study. This is exactly the kind of exegetical defense I’m always seeking when it comes to this topic – show me how the Bible itself, not just historical precedent, defends egalitarianism as opposed to complementarianism. I’m sure that I’ll be returning to this as a study resource.

P.S. I gotta say, though: Blaming his father’s hiking death on the fact that he ignored his wife’s request to postpone the expedition to another day, thereby neglecting the biblical mandate of mutual submission, is crazy work. It’s giving, “God sank the Titanic because people said he couldn’t.” Like, sir. Please.

| 4.5 stars |

(audiobook via Spotify)

[Cristine Braddy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow!! I will be pondering this for awhile.

[Aleassa Jarvis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting and helpful book on the subject. The author presents decades of study and research on women’s issues pertaining to church leadership and marriage. He challenges the integrity of the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood with some eye-opening facts about the way Wayne Grudem and others skewed their information.

My favorite parts of the book were the “Answers to Objections” in which he responds to typical “biblical” arguments given for female subjection, headship, etc.

I did find the book a little confusing. I would have liked to see the chapters further developed and broken down more. As they are rather short, it makes for a quick read but leaves me feeling like I’m missing something.

I’d recommend this book alongside Lucy Peppiatt’s books for anyone wanting to understand this topic.

[Laney Dugan · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a great, thought-provoking read! I 10/10 recommend this book to anyone thoughtfully considering this topic. He does a thorough job of unpacking texts that we’ve learned to read through a particular lens, offering helpful contextual insights that shed new light on common questions and concerns surrounding women and their role in marriage and the church. Grateful for works like this!

[Nyameye Otoo · Rating 4 out of 5]

FWIW:  I listened to the Audio version of this book via Audible, in a single sitting, on either 2x or 2.5x speed. In terms of footnotes / technical discussion etc - even in the audiobook for it is super clear in it's referencing. However, I definitely missed some things and did not process everything I could have!

Some clarification on the title of this book (in my understanding), and how that frames what this book covers:

The term "Biblical Womanhood" (and Manhood) refers not to some kind of general understanding of "what women said or did in the bible", but refers to a specific view and prescription of "complementarianism" that was primarily established in the 80/90's by the "Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" (CBMW). The CBMW were/are a group of conservative Christian scholars.

(Christian, Biblical) Complementarianism contends that the Bible both describes and prescribes clear definitions for how men and women should act and relate to one another in line with their clear gender roles. The way this is normally summarised is that both men and women are "equal in value", meaning that neither sex is worth more than the other, but they are "distinct in roles", meaning that they are not only generally suited to differing specific tasks or responsibilities - but that the traversal of those responsibilities is usually harmful to one or both sexes. Thus, men and women "complement" each other when they are properly (hierarchically) ordered in their relationships to one another. Two pieces of a puzzle which fit nicely together.

The controversy arises when either a) the responsibilities prescribed seem to be gender stereotypes which go far beyond anything described in the Bible or b) other also conservative Christians read the Bible as affirming the equality of men and women in both value, and not denying women from taking on various responsibilities - known in contrast to complementarianism as "egalitarianism". Enter the "Christians for Biblical Equality" also formed in the 80s/90s, made up of conservative Christians who wanted to display the Bibles affirmation of both men and women in all types of roles and responsibilities! A more "open" kind of equality.

For better or worse, these appear to be the language and camps that identify the views - and Philip Barton Payne is a classic and long-term proponent of the view that the Christian scriptures teach, both implicitly and explicitly affirm gender equality. So - with all of that said, what Payne is doing is this book is not "neutral". It is arguing for a specific view. The title communicates that Payne believes, fundamentally, that the "Biblical Womanhood [and Manhood]" movement is, at the end of the day, actually ironically not biblical.

In this book, Payne appears to both condense, but also extend the argumentation he put forward in his 500 page tome "Man and Woman, One in Christ". In a much more straightforwardly textual and exegetical way than some other "egalitarian" works, Payne argues strongly in each of the relevant texts to show (positively) that an egalitarian reading makes the most sense, aswell as (negatively) arguing against complementarian readings (such as, but not limited to, Grudem).

Again, for better or worse, a reader may be overwhelmed by the textual / technical nature of Payne's argumentation. Although for the most part I do think a patient reader could work their way through it, some sections I think may go over some readers heads. It is saturated with biblical references,  but also touches on translation and textual arguments. For instance - Payne, as a new testament scholar in the realm of translation and "textual criticism" (sifting through manuscripts of the Bible to ascertain the most accurate reading in the original languages, which can then be used as the basis for translations), will spend time disputing BDAG (a standard lexicon/ "greek dictionary"). Certainly important, crucial even, but something I think is far too technical for the regular lay reader. It is certainly a dense book - but one that certainly would reward careful reading.

Payne covers lots in his book, so I can't comment on it all even if I remembered it (I listened to this is one in August 2023 and am now recalling from memory) - but it is a strong, classic, and compelling case for an egalitarian reading of Scripture, although I am sure many would disagree with his readings . Payne, also an ordained minister, is fully committed to the authority of the Bible for Christians, and as such argues from a purely textual basis. This book in some ways is a great compliment to Gupta's "Tell Her Story", that booking being more of a introduction  via a contextual framework approach, with this being much more focused on individual, technical,  textual arguments.

In the book, Payne tackles in various chapters:

* Genesis 1-3
* Women in the Old Testament
* Specific Women in the New Testament Gospels and Letters
* Gender Equality in Marriage, and on the Basis of Spiritual Gifting
* Gender Equality based on the Theology of Galatians
* Addressing Issues in 1 Corinthians (as it relates to "head wear" and "absolute silence")
* Mutual Submission in Ephesians and Household Codes
* Addressing Issues in 1 Timothy 2 (as it relates to "teaching" and "child bearing")
* Overseer, Deacon/Deaconess and Elder Qualifications 

From what I can remember, the chapters on Genesis 1-3 and Women in the Old Testament were particularly good. I also vaguely remember thinking the chapters of Overseer, Deacons and Elders being quite convoluted and not particularly convincing.

Some standout things worth mentioning - or views that are particularly emphasized by Payne, and not generally by other egalitarian interpreters.

1) Contra lots of other people, Payne argues the issue in 1 Corinthians 11 is not head coverings, but relates to hairstyles. Essentially he argues that the head/hair coverings view doesn't make sense of biblical or extra-biblical data, and arises from translators attempts to smooth over the awkward language of "down on/from the head". The issue then for him is to do with propriety in worship, and how various hairstyles indicate immorality which should be present during worship. A bold but consistent argument which seems to go against most historical interpretation.

2) Most "controversially", Payne argues that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation (i.e. isn't part of the original letter of Paul, and was introduced by a scribal mistake, gloss or otherwise shenanigans). He argues this from a text critical basis based on "Distigme-Obelos Symbols" (little markings in manuscripts), as well as ink colour. This is extremely technical - although he also goes to great lengths to show that this does not in any way effect the reliability of the text in general, or open a door for simply "removing bits of the Bible" at will. It is a self contained argument. Although I'm still not convinced, or sure I'm particularly comfortable with doctrine based on text-critical issues, I do have to admit this proposal is much more reasonable here than I had previously thought it could be. The main problem is I, and most others simply are not textual critics. Payne does actually provide an accompanying PDF with actual scans of papyrus/codex sections however, to visually guide the reader through his argumentation.

What you do get in this book is a much more refined version of the what might be popular "egalitarian" interpretation and conclusions - at least as I've heard and understood them! It's simple for the most part, and is not at all heavily based (as far as I can tell) on speculation. For these reasons I would not only recommend it to the egalitarians (although, taking note of the text critical argument in 1 Cor 14 being uncomfortable), but also to any complementarian who would honestly like to see conservative egalitarian exegesis.

Overall 3.75/5 with points docked for potential opaqueness to a non-academically-inclined-reader and tone.

(Minor aside, some egalitarians hold to a view that there are minimal prescribed differences in general between genders, and others apply this more strictly to the ministerial roles in Church or corporate worship. I'm not sure exactly where Payne is on that spectrum purely because I can't remember)

[Johnathan Sorce · Rating 5 out of 5]

Overall an excellent book, and one which I would certainly recommend to anyone who is interested or open to reading it. Even if, after reading it, you do not completely agree with all of Payne's conclusions and *his* interpretations, I think it really shows that the interpretations on which complementarianism is based are just that - interpretations (which are often built on preconceptions instead of coming exclusively from the text itself), not the indisputable truth. Thus, no matter on which side of the complementarian-egalitarian divide you find yourself coming down on, there is certainly valid and compelling evidence to be found with either side, and such differences of opinion should not be grounds for judgement, condemnation, or for standing aloof from fellow Christians. All this being said, I *do* think that Payne provides some very compelling evidence in favor of egalitarianism based on careful and detailed analysis of Biblical context and on the original Greek and Hebrew texts and the nuances of their translations and manuscripts. While he does summarize slightly in some places (meaning, if you want to see more evidence, you can look at his 500-page work on the same subject) he largely lays out all the information he is drawing on, allowing you to trace his logic and evaluate exactly what portions of his argument seem plausible or implausible. The other works I have read on this topic have not drawn very heavily on scripture in their assertions or analysis, so seeing Payne provide such a deep dive is really helpful. Simultaneously, it's not too esoteric (usually) or too long to absorb easily, though it still covers all the major passages which cause debate.

[Kara · Rating 5 out of 5]

The research, explanations, and biblical and contextual references were gathered together to present ideas in accessible, clear, and logical ways. It includes theological depth and insight into translation of the Greek language, but in a way that can appeal to beginners and those with educational background in study like this. It does not look at pieces of text in isolation, but identifies patterns and looks at passages, and the Bible, as a whole.

This book settled over my soul like ... a breath of fresh air when rising from a deep dive... like a sunrise after a dark night... like life itself.
I hope and pray that people on both sides, complementarian and egalitarian, give this book the thoughtful consideration it deserves.

I wish I had had this book as a teenager. I don't think one can imagine the consequences and pain of being told you are unequal, lesser, unless one experiences it for themselves. This book revealed God's heart for all. There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are created in the image of God and one in Christ.

I am deeply grateful for the innumerable hours and hard work that went into writing this book.

[Liz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Will come back with my review soon! Payne's work is intellectually honest, scripturally sound and honoring to men, women and God. I'm so ready for egalitarian doctrine to be viewed as Biblical rather than (gasp) "liberal."

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely thorough and well-researched. You can tell that this man’s heart is for the word of God. Made me want to learn Greek tbh so I can find out the truth

[Brianna Lake · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for every Christian

[Jenny Lane · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a great presentation of Payne's analysis on what the Bible has to say about the "roles" of men and women. He delves into exegesis, historical context and documents, and logical argumentation on relevant passages in the Bible, especially in the Apostle Paul's letters, that I found very helpful. One of my key takeaways/turning points that I'll share here was the realization that patriarchy was a result of the Fall. Payne lays out the analysis very well, reading Genesis 1-2 on its own merits without backing post-Fall realities and assumptions into it. It completely blew my mind - history fell into place once that fact was settled straight at the beginning. The rest of the book contained many more insights from credible research and logical analysis, and all the while, Payne was faithful to the inerrancy of Scripture.

As much as I learned from this book, I came away with as many burning questions as before, especially between the lines of the analysis laid out in the book. So shortly after finishing this book, I started reading Payne's academic presentation of the research in 'Man and Woman, One in Christ'. I've been working through it alongside a few friends for several months (there's so much to ponder and talk about), and it has been SO WELL WORTH every moment of it. I'm not a scholar, so a lot of the Greek in particular was above my head, but the rest of the content - evidence, exegesis, logical analysis, and footnotes - were helpful as far as I could follow them, which was gratefully far. This is a resource I will revisit again.

Overall, I cannot recommend both books strongly enough to those seriously studying the scripture on this topic.

[Abigail Stolberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay it’s an incendiary title.
This was a pretty good book, and I would have moved through it in short order had it not been for a chapter arguing that 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 are not original to the Bible and were added to NT manuscripts. I am not knowledgeable about that kind of thing, but I don’t think this is a widely held opinion. I found the chapter very hard to follow, there were pictures of manuscripts and confusing explanations of the pictures, etc. This really made me lose confidence in the book overall. Which is too bad, because I think he made some good points.
He does use his own translation of the passages he discusses, but not all the time, which made things rather confusing, and sometimes even misleading. Read it with your Bible open (and the Greek handy) and that would probably be fine. This was quite a mixed bag for me in the end. I’d recommend it, with a couple of caveats. I would think it’d be good as a reference book also, since it’s organized by passage.

[Laura Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book because I was curious to see what possible justification the Southern Baptists could have for ejecting the handful of churches in their denomination that ordained women as associate/non-senior pastors. I couldn't stomach the thought of reading the SBC's misogynist heresies written by their true believers. This seemed like a good side route to engage with their twisted interpretation of scripture without despairing of all the evil they are doing.

This book worked for my purpose. The author grew up immersed in this perversion of Christianity, so is more compassionate toward the heretics than I would be. I'm still astonished by how people have warped the gospels to fit their worldviews (though I shouldn't be), and appreciated the time the author took to explain both the origins of their false readings and the mistranslations that spurred the erroneous understandings.

I found his arguments weakest when he was engaging with the likely forged letters of Paul (Ephesians being one of them). His idea that the author of Ephesians wasn't attempting to oust women from leadership in a later-stage, more established Christian church, but was actually Paul, wrestling with real-time challenges posed by the primacy of the local pagan cults' influence on the Ephesian Christian community, is an interesting one. I'm no expert, but I wonder how Biblical scholars will react to the notion that Ephesians is an authentic letter written by Paul as opposed to a later forgery. Payne's explanation seemed a bit tortured, but maybe it works. I look forward to reading reactions from other scholars in the field (I hope to see them).

[Joshua · Rating 2 out of 5]

Written like the argument of a “win at any cost” defense lawyer. Cocky and abrasive with a total lack of humility while ignoring or misrepresenting anything that doesn’t support his argument.

There are some truly compelling points to consider and that should give real pause to complimentarians, but this resource is so unfair that I’m hesitant to give his longer more in-depth book on the subject any more of my time.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent read; a well articulated exposition of what the Bible actually says about women

[Hobart · Rating 3 out of 5]

This originally appeared at The Irresponsible Reader.
---
THE BACK OF THE BOOK SAYS

A biblical defense of egalitarianism

In The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood, New Testament scholar Philip B. Payne shows how Scripture affirms gender equality in the church and in the home. This issue is important because it affects the freedom of Christians to proclaim the gospel and advance God's kingdom. Payne carefully examines each Bible passage alleged to teach gender hierarchy and demonstrates that the Bible does not endorse gender hierarchy but instead emphasizes:

The Holy Spirit gifting all believers for ministry
The oneness of the body of Christ (the church) and the priesthood of all believers
Humility, service, and mutual submission required of all believers

Payne concludes each chapter by defending his position by providing detailed answers to common objections.

The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood is for those struggling to reconcile the Bible's seemingly contradictory teachings about man and woman. Readers will come away with greater confidence in the reliability of Scripture's consistent, harmonious message of gender equality.

WHAT'S THIS LOOK LIKE?
Essentially Payne looks at 11 Biblical passages that are frequently used to support complementarian/patriarchal positions in the church. He critiques those interpretations and offers his own. The critical portions of each chapter are smaller than the positive portions, I should stress. Payne's focus is on explaining and defending his interpretations.

SOME PROBLEMS
I'm not evaluating Payne's arguments or positions—that's not what this blog is about. But as a reader, there were a few flags raised that made it hard for me to take the work as seriously as I might otherwise.

So, I got a little uneasy when in one of the introductions, Payne referred to his "discoveries" in his studies of the Biblical texts. At this stage of Church History discoveries are pretty suspect.

What made me really suspicious of Payne's work was the way he'd slip between Bible translations frequently—essentially you get the idea he cherry-picked translations to support his arguments for him, rather than sticking with one translation (or translating each passage himself) and then explaining his issues with a word choice or two—on the whole, I find that a lot more convincing.

Two of his most pivotal chapters utilize a lot of textual criticism prior to his interpretation of the text—Payne does a thorough job of explaining that criticism and then constructs his argument. I don't know enough to evaluate his critical work there—I find both arguments plausible, but his positions rely so heavily on them that multiple chapters would crumble without them. I don't know if his positions can stand without him being right on these points.

I'd love to read good scholarly reactions to his textual critical arguments, I wonder how much water they hold.

SO, WHAT DID I THINK ABOUT THE BIBLE VS. BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD?
I really liked a lot of the book—and found myself agreeing with most of his critiques of complementarianism/patriarchal positions. I was able to appreciate many—maybe most—of his positive arguments, I don't think I was won over totally by any, but I didn't expect that to happen off of one popular-level book (nor was I looking for it).

The book was well-written, engaging, and clear. Payne takes complicated (and almost convoluted) ideas and expresses them in a way that anyone can get their hands around. And even if you're not convinced—but I can see him convincing those who are looking for it—you will understand the positions, and see a lot of things that look easy are a lot murkier, and require wisdom to work through.

I do think this is worth the time to read and think through, I'm glad I did. I would read other things by Payne in the future. I'd love to hear what other people think.

[Melissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

”Prohibiting women from exercising their leadership and teaching gifts limits the proclamation of the gospel and the advancement of God’s kingdom. It is… a waste of resources.”

Things I learned (or remembered) while reading this book:
- The first Christian missionary was a woman. (John 4:28-42)
- The first person to encounter the risen Christ, and then to preach the good news of his resurrection, was a woman. (John 20:14-18)
- In the Old Testament era of judges, the only judge whose rule was entirely positive was a woman. (Judges 4 & 5)
- When the OT moved from judges to kings, there were only three royal rulers who reigned entirely without criticism. Guess what? All three were women. (Esther 7:1–10; 9:1–32; 1 Kings 10:1–13; 2 Chronicles 9:1–12; Daniel 5:10–12)
- In the New Testament, the only person who is identified as having a specific office/title within a specific local church is Phoebe, a deacon of the Cenchrean church. A woman. (Romans 16:1)

….But go ahead, reformed calvinists, tell me again how your church’s elder board can only include men, and how it’s fine that the Holy Spirit forgot to imbue women with the gifts of teaching or leadership because they’re not allowed to have those anyway, and how we should all just sit down and be quiet and make some quilts.

Honestly every complementarian pastor out there should be made to sit through a lecture from Philip B. Payne where he dissects the mistranslations and misapplications of scripture that have led to the church’s widespread subjugation of women. His work is so thorough and compelling that he has actually brought about changes to the NIV bible because of his convincing research. This was such a valuable read.

[Jake Preston · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5. Does the Bible teach that men are the head of the home and church? Does it enforce the concept of male headship and gender hierarchy? Payne says no, that men and women are equal both in terms of status before God (which shouldn't be debated) and function. Payne chronologically unpacks each controversial passage used in the complementarian vs. egalitarian debate, showing how the Bible enforces the concept of equality and mutuality between men and women.

He clearly has a deep grasp of the Bible's original languages as well as the biblical story. In fact, the NIV translation committee actually amended its translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 as a result of Payne's research.

I found his exposition of Ephesians 5 and the concept of mutual submission (as opposed to male headship) along with Galatians 3:28 and its implications for issues in the life of the church (as opposed to just who can be saved) to be exceptionally well-researched and compelling.

I came into this book with an open mind and must say that the arguments were incredibly persuasive.

[Halle Wassink · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Prohibiting women from exercising their leadership and teaching gifts limits the proclamation of the gospel and the advancement of God’s kingdom.”

“God demands justice and prohibits favoritism and the subjugation of others. Gender hierarchy inherently entails favoritism and historically has been linked with the subjugation of women.”

Agh I don’t say this often but I wish this content was discussed in a podcast type format. It would be so much richer and engaging for me if someone was telling it to me conversationally. Honestly, I didn’t finish it because I thought it was kinda boring and hard to read (eep sorry). In the books defense, it is written more as a research summary than what I was expecting. Intended for slow studying and reflecting. Don’t get me wrong, the content was great and it was there, just not written as how I would have preferred.

[Bridget Hanks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book methodically works through every piece of scripture used to subjugate women or bar them from certain roles and explains them more clearly, proving that God never intended for anyone to be forbidden from using the gifts He gives them, and that His plan for men and women has always been harmonious equality. I already agreed with Payne, so after a while I started skimming because it got a bit dense. There’s a lot of historical and translation research here, and I feel like a lot of what Payne brings out by revisiting the original Greek makes a lot of sense, so I didn’t need as much convincing as he was offering. I feel like this fills in the gaps that were missing from Barr’s ‘The Making of Biblical Womanhood’ but isn’t quite as compelling of a read. I would recommend both for a fuller picture of how ‘biblical womanhood’ became a thing and why it shouldn’t be a thing.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely some interesting arguments and points in here. I don't think it was 100% convincing, but it was strong. Unfortunately, since I'm not a Greek scholar, I have to take his word on a lot of this, but he appeared to back it up. I'd be interested in hearing a scholarly critique of his arguments.

Plenty of stuff in here that I'm surprised I've never heard or read before. Particularly interesting to me was how modern translation committees' decisions to put a paragraph break in certain passages of Scripture (where one shouldn't exist) or add in a seemingly innocuous word can completely shape an entire theology.

[Ruthie Dierdorff · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was the most biblically supported book on women’s roles in the church that I have read yet. at the very least, it shows that the egalitarian perspective is a scripturally valid perspective that needs to be treated with more respect by complementarian Christians.

it can be a very technical book at times, and occasionally the arguments were hard for me to follow (but that could be because i read it way too fast and while slightly jet lagged)

[Jamie Fuson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read- as someone who grew up with a background of women do not have significant leadership roles in the church this was a new take that i haven’t heard before. I’m not sure I’m 100% convinced but I’m interested in doing more research- in the end, not a salvation issue but still something I’m curious to unpack over time