Journal: Eikon
Volume: EIKON 03:2 (Fall 2021)
Article: Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision For Women: Fresh Perspectives On Disputed Texts
Author: Joshua M. Greever

Eikon 3.2 (Fall 2021) p. 100

Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision For Women: Fresh Perspectives On Disputed Texts

REVIEWED BY

Joshua M. Greever

Joshua M. Greever is Associate Professor of New Testament at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Peppiatt, Lucy. Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2019.

Introduction

In Rediscovering Scripture’s Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts, Lucy Peppiatt, the principal of Westminster Theological Centre, analyzes what the Bible says about the role of women in the church and home. Her intended audience is primarily “the evangelical Protestant world” (160), and she aims to show that the relevant biblical texts are not as straightforward as they are often made to sound, and that when read properly, actually support an egalitarian — she prefers the term “mutualist” — viewpoint. Specifically, she argues that the complementarian — she prefers the term “hierarchicalist” — interpretation of the relevant texts promotes “the exclusion, subordination, and silencing of women” (142), and does not accord with the text.

Eikon 3.2 (Fall 2021) p. 101

Summary

In order to accomplish this aim, Peppiatt divides the book into eight chapters. In Chapters 1 and 2, she reckons with the apparent androcentricity of the Bible, especially “the maleness of Jesus” (10), and she queries how that might impact our understanding of God and salvation history. From the standpoint of theology, she rightly dismisses the notion that God is embodied and does not have biological gender as humans do. She also notes that Scripture, while often referring to God with the masculine pronoun (“he”) or with the signification of “Father,” can speak of God using maternal imagery (e.g., Isa. 46:3–4). Hence, the maleness of Jesus shouldn’t lead us to believe that God has masculine gender. Instead, Peppiatt suggests that in the incarnation the Son chose to be born a male in order that, through him as a “free Jewish male,” everyone who is united to him can hold “the place of highest honor in the closest proximity to God” (40).

In Chapters 3 and 4 she analyzes the Genesis creation account and Paul’s teaching on head coverings (1 Cor. 11:2–16). At creation, Genesis 1:26–27 is the controlling text, and the subsequent creation account in Genesis 2:4–25 must be interpreted ...