I appreciate that the author brings attention to women in the Bible who are often overlooked. Their stories deserve to be told as well. A book that systematically explores the influential roles of women in Scripture could be a welcome and valuable read. However, that wasn't this book. This book's primary purpose was to try to convince the reader that nothing in the Bible prohibits women from being leaders and teachers in the church today.
I've thought a lot about how to review this book. I don’t want to give a low rating simply because I disagree with its conclusions. I want to support my critiques with evidence while keeping the review concise, so I’ve structured it with a general overview with more details below for anyone interested.
I think the biggest issue with this book is that the author frequently goes beyond what the Bible actually says, making broad assumptions and extrapolating far beyond the text. Essentially, he finds what he wants to find, no matter how improbable it may be.
One of his key assumptions is that nearly every named woman in the New Testament was a leader in the church—even when the text gives no indication of this. For example, Romans 16:15 “Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them." Gupta includes Julia and Nereus' sister as “ministry leaders" even though we know nothing about them, other than that Paul greeted them.
Another way he finds what he wants to find is that if there are multiple possible explanations, he will always go with the one that supports his view, even if it is much less likely. Take Lydia, for instance, and her role in the church at Philippi. She was the first convert in Philippi (at least that we are told about), and she invites Paul and Silas into her home. She’s mentioned in just three verses, all in Acts 16. Gupta takes that and runs with it. He claims that she was most likely instituted as the elder there in Philippi. But why? Yes, early believers met in her house, but does that mean the meetings continued there indefinitely? And why is she not named in the letter to the Philippians? Other people are named, but not Lydia. It seems much more likely that she is named because she was the first convert, and important to the narrative in Acts 16, not because she became the elder/overseer at Philippi.
Gupta also frequently uses straw man arguments to make his case more persuasive. A recurring one is the false dichotomy he sets up between someone being a “ministry leader” or being unimportant. For example, in Romans 16:6, "Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you," he suggests that this means Mary was probably a founding member and leading elder of the church in Rome. He argues that this kind of commendation wouldn’t be given to someone with a minor or menial role. — He seemingly ignores the fact that people can labor faithfully for the gospel without holding leadership positions.
Finally, he will sometimes pull out his ultimate “get out of jail free” card. He’ll claim that we shouldn’t “import our modern context” back into biblical times or that certain passages were intended only for a specific occasion and aren’t universal teachings. He does this, for example, with 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
Despite my issues with the book, I did find it beneficial in one sense—it prompted me to examine the biblical texts more closely to evaluate his claims. Occasionally, I was surprised to find that he made a valid point, and revealed something I hadn't considered before. More often, though, his arguments rested on assumptions and overinterpretations. Because of this, and due to some instances of weak scholarship, I ultimately didn’t find the book very convincing.
————————————
Extended notes/thoughts
————————————
He makes some easily refutable false claims
He says that no judge (other than Deborah) has nothing negative said about them. — Which is false.
- I'll assume he means any judge who has more than a few verses. Because many judges have fewer than 5 verses or so about them, and nothing bad is mentioned about them.
- But even with that, he is still incorrect that there are no other judges who have similar amount written about them as Deborah, but also have nothing bad written about them. For example Ehud has 16 verses of his narrative (Judges 3:15-30) and nothing negative is mentioned about him (Deborah has 10 verses of her narrative). He mentions Gideon as one example of a judge with negative verses along with the good. But that is hardly a fair comparison since Gideon has 98 verses of narrative, so it is not surprising that he has negative things written about him. As a writer, if you have to be brief, you can't afford to stray from the main point, but with more space you are free to give a more balanced picture of a person. Almost every single Biblical character who has a significant amount written about them will have negative things written about them (which is a good thing, because it gives a more balanced picture).
He claims that as a judge, Deborah was a spiritual leader for Israel, like Joshua. But is that really consistent? Were all the other judges also spiritual leaders? Gideon? Samson? Really?
He makes a big point about Deborah, being a prophet and judge, is precedent for spiritual leaders being women. But he never mentions anything about priests. Why are there no female priests?
About the list of people in Romans 16
- "His comments titles and descriptions are all positive. So he was honoring each of them, publicly praising them as model leaders. 10 of them are women."
- Even though 2 of the women are not even named, he assumes that they are being publicly praised as "model leaders."
There are a number of logically inconsistencies.
- He spends a large part of the book explaining why it would not have been odd for women to be managers of a household and business and property owners in secular contexts. But in order to dismiss the male headship passages, he says that "it's likely Paul could not comprehend anything different from the current standard of order in the household." — How could Paul have not been able to comprehend something that he had already said existed in his time?
- Also: He says that Paul could have used many different words to describe "exercise authority." Why would he use such an obscure word such as αὐθεντέω instead of ἐξουσία?
- (But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. 1 Tim. 2:12)
- To use that same argument, why would Paul say "husband to one wife" when all he meant was "free from immorality"? Why would he use such an uncommon, gender specific way of explaining sexual purity, unless he had a reason for it? In 1 Cor. 7 Paul talks about sexual purity, and he addresses having a spouse both ways like, "But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." (1 Cor. 7:2) Why not here too, if that's what he meant? Also, he used this wording (husband of one wife) both times he gave the qualifications for overseers.
It's interesting that all of his support comes from narrative, descriptive passages. Boiled down, his basic argument is that women are viewed highly. They are honored and respected, therefore it makes sense that they would be teachers and leaders. — However, the only passages that are actually prescriptive, informing us who to put in place as teachers and leaders, have a clear male focus.
He pulls a couple "bait and switch" maneuvers when quoting John Chrysostom and Origen. — He quotes them to support his position that Junia in Romans 16:7 was a woman and an apostle. "They call her a woman and an apostle. Boom! Therefore she had a leading and teaching role." But he doesn't quote is where they also confirm that a woman cannot teach publicly. So in their mind, whatever it meant for her to be an "apostle," it didn't include teaching.
In what sense then does he say, I suffer not a woman to teach? (1 Timothy 2:12) He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward (1 Corinthians 14:35,) and from the seat on the bema, not from the word of teaching. Since if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, How do you know, O woman, if you shall save your husband? (1 Corinthians 7:16) Or how came he to allow her to admonish children, when he says, but she shall be saved by child-bearing if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety? (1 Timothy 2:15) How came Priscilla to instruct even Apollos? It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it was the teacher's duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. When she is the wiser, then he does not forbid her teaching and improving him.
○ John Chrysostom - Homily 31 on Romans
From
In this commentary, Origen dedicated a paragraph to Romans 16:6, which reads: “Greet Mary, who has labored much among you.” Origen elaborates:
○ ‘Greet Mary, who has labored much among you.’ He [Paul] is teaching even in this that women likewise ought to labor for the churches of God. For they labor both when they teach young women to be modest, to love their husbands, to raise children, to be pure and chaste, to govern their homes well, to be kind, to be submissive to their husbands, to receive in hospitality, to wash the feet of the saints, and all the other things written that are recorded concerning the services of women to do with all purity.
§ Origen, Commentary on Romans
○ Although those given above say more categorically that a woman does not have the right by her word to guide a man, I shall further prove this position from another text. ‘Bid the old women to behave themselves as befits holy women, teaching what is good, in order to form young women in wisdom,’ and not simply ‘Let them teach.’ Certainly, women should also ‘teach what is good,’ but men should not sit and listen to a woman, as if there were no men capable of communicating the word of God.
§ Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
○ But, let us be good-natured players, and cope with the arguments which they judge convincing. The Evangelist Philip, they say, had four daughters, and all prophesied. If they prophesied, what is strange, they ask, if our own prophetesses — as they are called — also prophesy? Let us then resolve this difficulty. First, since you say: ‘Our women prophesied,’ show in them the signs of prophesy. Second, if the daughters of Philip prophesied, at least they did not speak in the assemblies; for we do not find this fact in the Acts of the Apostles. Much less in the Old Testament. It is said that Deborah was a prophetess. Mary, the sister of Aaron, tambourine in hand, led the choir of women. There is no evidence that Deborah delivered speeches to the people, as did Jeremiah and Isaiah. Hulda, who was a prophetess, did not speak to the people, but only to a man, who consulted her at home. The Gospel itself mentions a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; but she did not speak publicly. Even if it is granted to a woman to prophesy and show the sign of prophecy, she is nevertheless not permitted to speak in an assembly. When Mary, the prophetess, spoke, she was leading a choir of women. For: ‘It is improper for a woman to raise her voice at meetings,’ and: ‘I am not giving permission for a woman to teach’ and even less ‘to tell a man what to do.’ (1 Timothy 2:12).
§ Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35