I applaud the editors of God’s Yes to Women for including an essay on women in the Old Testament.[1] As we will see below, there is much in Jill Firth’s essay “Disney Princesses, Superheroes, Influencers, and Women of the Old Testament” with which I agree. Firth has also been admirably careful in some of her conclusions. That being said, the big issue with Firth’s essay and other egalitarian readings of the Old Testament is that the texts are often not interpreted within the sweep of the canonical and Ancient Near Eastern contexts in which they are situated.[2] When this is done, the texts answer the questions in play in a very different way from the answers egalitarian readings generally give.
Substantial Agreement
In her essay, Firth convincingly demonstrates that the LORD used women as active participants throughout Israel’s history. The LORD repeatedly used women to protect, preserve, and deliver his people. Examples include the Egyptians’ maidservants (Exod. 1:15–21), Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:5–10), Rahab (Josh. 2:1–21; 6:22–25), Michal (1 Sam. 19:11–17), Abigail (1 Sam. 25:2–42), the wise woman of Tekoa (2 Sam. 14:1–24), the wise woman of Abel Beth Maacah (2 Sam. 20:14–22), Princess Jehosheba (2 Kings 11:1–3; 2 Chron. 22:10–12), and Queen Esther (Esth. 2–9). Firth shows that Old Testament women prophesied (Exod. 15:20–21; 2 Kgs 22:14–20), judged (Judg. 4:4–5), influenced Israel’s law (Num. 27:1–11), demonstrated theological insight (Judg. 13:22–23), influenced kings (Dan. 5:10–12; 1 Kgs 1:11–31), acted courageously and faithfully (Josh. 2:1–21; Ruth 1–4), and were repeatedly used by God to advance his purposes. I can’t think of a writer who has summarised the sheer volume of data so helpfully. Firth succinctly and persuasively demonstrates God’s valuing of women and their active participation in his purposes. Both sides of the debate can praise God for Firth’s great summary and for the way God has used many women to save his people in history.
Methodological Qualifications
What is lacking in Firth’s essay is the next step or two that takes us from the data she amasses to the conclusion that women can preach to mixed congregations and be leaders at the highest levels of church government. Because of the wider argument of the book, it seems the reader is meant to move from the biblical data to the conclusion that there should be no divinely ordered distinction between the ministry roles of men and women.[3] But, as we will see, this implied methodological leap is unfounded. In this section we will explore some of the remarkable Old Testament women who are often used to argue for egalitarian practice in the modern church before giving a different conclusion from that given by our egalitarian brothers and sisters in Christ.
Miriam was the first Israelite to put the LORD’s salvation into song (Ex. 15:20–21). Micah 6:4 says she was a leader in the wilderness and ranks her alongside Aaron and Moses. It is clear, therefore, that Miriam was an extremely important leader in Israel. But this raises the question of what kind of leader she was. It is important to note that Moses, Aaron and Miriam do not inhabit interchangeable offices. Moses has a unique prophetic and mediatorial role (Num. 12:6–8; Deut. 34:10–12). Aaron is high priest. Miriam is a prophetess. Numbers 12 is particularly important because, when Miriam and Aaron challenge Moses, the LORD emphatically distinguishes Moses’ authority from theirs. Miriam did not hold the office of priest, which was a male-only office, and Moses was distinct as the main leader of the burgeoning nation of Israel.
Firth’s chapter does not make much of Abigail (1 Sam. 25), but Andrew Cameron mentions her as evidence for female “influence and agency” in his chapter.[4] On this point I totally agree with Dr Cameron. Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 is one of the clearest examples where the Old Testament portraying women who use skill and wisdom to help men avoid sin or counteract sinful structures.[5] To see the significance of Abigail’s intervention, we must take seriously David’s capacity for violence. One of the most significant changes in the study of the historical David is the casting of David as a bloodthirsty tyrant.[6] While there are significant methodological issues with these readings, they do help us see that the historian(s) who wrote 1 and 2 Samuel give us “David as a human being, never fearing to underscore shortcomings, nor stress peculiarities.”[7]
Many Christians overlook how violent David was.[8] Many of us remember the two times that David had the opportunity to kill Saul but chose not to (1 Sam. 24; 26). But we forget the narrative that is sandwiched between these stories. In 1 Samuel 25, David asks a wealthy man, Nabal, to show him and his men hospitality (1 Sam. 25:4–8).[9] When Nabal refuses (vv. 10–11), David hastily gathers his men together to slaughter Nabal and every male in his household (vv. 13, 21–22).
Then Nabal’s wife Abigail, who is called both beautiful and wise (1 Sam. 25:3), heads off the situation. She comes to David humbly with a speech that is “orchestrated to absorb the insults her husband has spoken.”[10] She wisely offers food to David and his men (vv. 18–19, 27). There are striking parallels between what Abigail offered David’s men and the rations that Ramesses II’s men ate while on expedition in Palestine, as seen in Papyrus Anastasi I.[11] This underscores her wisdom, as she fed David’s men like warriors, which is how they presented themselves (1 Sam. 25:13, 16, 21). In both her words and her hospitality, Abigail is a model of diplomacy and wisdom. She also displays herself as “a devoted adherent of Yahweh.”[12]
Abigail skilfully averted bloodshed. But when we read this in the context of Saul’s violence towards David and David’s sparing of Saul’s life, we see God using her to stop David from being the kind of impulsively violent leader that Saul is. David himself recognises that God has used Abigail to stop him from bloodshed, “which would have tainted his future kingship” (vv. 32–34).[13] Therefore, through Abigail, God, in his sovereignty, saves David from becoming a fool like Nabal and an impulsively violent leader like Saul.[14]
When we turn to Proverbs 31:1–9, we see that “A mother even teaches her son, a king, how to rule well.”[15] In this text a mother is not only instructing a future king, as in 1 Samuel 25, but a sitting king. Along with a number of other texts, Abigail and Proverbs 31 show us that the Old Testament is comfortable, in some contexts, with women teaching or instructing men.
This all-too-brief survey of women in the Old Testament shows that God uses women in positions of leadership and influence and, in some cases, to teach men. The Old Testament therefore gives no basis whatsoever for the idea that women are intellectually, spiritually or inherently incapable of leading, instructing, counselling, or speaking God’s truth to men. But none of those propositions answers the much narrower ecclesiological question of whether the new covenant office of elder/overseer or the authoritative teaching of the gathered church is sexually differentiated. That question must ultimately be answered from the New Testament texts that address the ordering of the church. If the New Testament subsequently restricts a particular ecclesial office or teaching function to qualified men, it cannot reasonably be because women are inherently incapable of teaching men theological truth. Abigail alone would make such an anthropology difficult to sustain. The question must instead be whether the New Testament establishes sex-specific order within particular offices or contexts.
It is instructive that the times in the Old Testament where women do lead and teach men are not in the context of the gathered people of God at the tabernacle or temple. While attendance at Israel’s cult was open to both men and women, leadership in this setting was not.[16] This means that, to move from women showing leadership and influence in ancient Israel to women being able to inhabit any office or teaching position in the modern church, Firth and the writers of this book need to step us through the necessary hermeneutical arguments and show that the New Testament overturns the specific pattern of male religious leadership when God’s people are gathered. Neither step has been demonstrated. So at this point, the egalitarian argument they are putting forward has no support from the Old Testament narratives we have briefly explored.
Exegetical Issues
As evangelicals, the writers and editors of God’s Yes To Women and I agree that the exegesis of the biblical text has to be the deciding factor in the shaping of ministry. A text needs to be read carefully within its canonical context and only then be applied to any ministry practice. Any conclusion that we draw must be able to bear the weight of the text. With this in mind, the rest of this essay is going to critique conclusions drawn in Firth’s essay. What we will see is that the readings offered by egalitarians like Firth and the other writers of God’s Yes To Women have severe and fatal exegetical flaws.
Firth orders the biblical material under different headings, two of which are “Disney Princesses” and “Influencers”. While this is a fun way of organising the material, it does not necessarily help us get at what is really happening in the text. For example, Firth claims that “Like Disney princesses, the women of Genesis are often exceptionally beautiful.”[17] While it is true that Sarah (Gen. 12:11, 14), Rebekah (24:16) and Rachel (29:17) are called beautiful, the writer of Genesis does not describe the appearance of most of the women in the book.[18] When Genesis does describe a woman’s beauty, it rarely functions as a merely incidental detail. The women’s beauty introduces tension into the narrative as they become objects of male desire (12:10–20; 20:1–18; 24:15–16; 26:6–11; 29:16–30). By contrast, beauty is a large part of the identity of Disney princesses and is often used for their gain. Firth rightly notes, however, that the writer of Genesis gives a “nuanced depiction of women.”[19] While the women in Genesis are matriarchs and role models, Firth rightly does not go beyond the text to call them leaders.[20]
When we get to Deborah, Firth’s and others’ exegetical conclusions are more substantial.[21] Firth and others are correct in noting that Deborah is both prophetess and judge and that she is a leader (Judg. 4:4–9, 14; 5:1, 7, 12, 15).[22] While this seems like an exegetical and ecclesiological slam dunk for our egalitarian brothers and sisters, we need to see Judges 4–5 in the context of the whole book. The book of Judges is set at one of the lowest points of Israelite history, a time when “Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit” (17:6; 21:25; cf. 18:1; 19:1). This raises the question of how Deborah’s leadership functions within that setting. The reader should also note how the roles of women function in Judges. Webb points out that women “function in one way or another as foils for the evaluation of the character and behaviour of the leading men.”[23] For example, Achsah’s story highlights Caleb’s care and generosity towards his daughter as he provides for her through the gift of land and springs of water (1:12–15). Jephthah’s daughter, in her submission to her father, stands in stark contrast to Jephthah’s foolishness and lack of trust in God, as he believes he needs to bargain in order to secure God’s gracious action towards him (11:29–40). The women in the Samson narrative highlight Samson’s foolishness, his wayward sexual desire, and his impulsivity (14:1–20; 16:1–22).
If we keep this in mind, Judges 4–5 says something rather different from what many egalitarian readings suggest. In Judges 4:6, Deborah sends for the military leader Barak. It is Deborah, not Barak, who is in control here.[24] Then Barak says to her, “If you go with me, I will go; but if you don’t go with me, I won’t go” (4:8). Barak is meant to be a military leader who would have heard of the LORD doing great things through the military leaders of Israel’s past, yet he will not enter the fray unless Deborah goes with him.[25] In this he shows cowardice and a lack of strength and leadership. Verse 9 says that Deborah will go. Once again, she is in charge. Yet instead of Barak being the one who defeats Sisera and receives the glory as a conquering hero, a woman will do his job and receive his glory. Barak’s cowardice means he will receive no such honour.
Later in the chapter, Jael and Sisera’s interaction mirrors Deborah and Barak’s. In verses 18–20 Jael is in control: she goes out to meet Sisera, invites him in and comforts him. Her words have a singing quality in Hebrew; she is, as it were, singing him a lullaby to his destruction.[26] She gives him a blanket and some warm milk and gets him to lie down for a nap. In verse 20 he asks her to lie by saying there is no one in her tent. There is irony here. A literal translation of the Hebrew is, “If a man comes and asks, ‘Is any man here?’ say, ‘No.’”[27] Out of his own lips, he is saying there is no ‘real’ man in this tent. The narrative implies that Sisera, like Barak, is not a man of courage but a weak coward.
Both Sisera and Barak have only one line each: Barak tells Deborah that he needs her to come with him; Sisera tells Jael that she needs to protect him. Barak is a coward in the face of victory; Sisera is a coward in the face of defeat. The courage and faith of Deborah expose the cowardice and lack of faith of Barak, and the action of Jael exposes the cowardice of Sisera. To read Judges 4–5 primarily as a declaration about women in leadership risks missing the literary function of Deborah and Jael within the narrative. It is not that Deborah is portrayed negatively. Her courage, faith and decisive leadership expose Barak’s hesitation, dependence and cowardice, just as Jael’s courage and decisive action expose the lack of courage and maturity of Sisera.[28] The women shine precisely because the men do not. Within the wider moral disorder of Judges, their strength functions as an indictment of men who fail to be what they ought to be. To borrow Lewis’s memorable phrase, Judges 4–5 gives us two examples of “men without chests”,[29] not a clear example demonstrating that Christian women should be pastors, elders or preachers to mixed congregations. There is nothing in the text that would substantiate Amy J. Erickson’s claim that Deborah is working “against the grain of the patriarchal conditions that were set by the fall.”[30]
Huldah is another Old Testament prophetess (2 Kgs. 22). While Huldah is significant as the last prophet before the exile in 2 Kings, descriptions of her as a “pivotal figure,”[31] at the “centre of public affairs,”[32] and “involved in matters of state”[33] are significant overreaches. Firth says that “The prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah were also active at this time, and perhaps Nahum, yet Huldah was chosen for this significant prophetic role.”[34] However, 2 Kings 22 never mentions Jeremiah or Zephaniah, never says they were available, never presents a choice between the prophets, and never explains why the delegation went to Huldah. Some authors argue that a woman prophet might have been more sympathetic or given a more favourable prophecy, or that Huldah was more respected and that is why Josiah’s men went to her. But this is all speculation.[35] The frustrating thing for us is that we do not know why Huldah in particular was consulted. What is striking, however, is that her message and terminology are exceedingly close to Jeremiah and Zephaniah.[36] Huldah is not presented as offering an alternative female prophetic perspective alongside contemporary male prophets. Her message stands firmly within the prophetic milieu of Josiah’s reign, closely resembling the preaching of her male contemporaries: Judah has abandoned the LORD for other gods, provoked his anger, and now faces unavoidable judgment.
The rest of Kings may shed some light on why this narrative was included. In Kings, Josiah is portrayed as the antithesis of Jeroboam I.[37] With this in mind, comparing 2 Kings 22 with 1 Kings 14 may reveal why the historian included the story of Huldah. The wicked King Jeroboam sends his wife to a male prophet, whereas the righteous King Josiah sends men to a female prophet.[38] The writer of Kings is not making a statement about women in leadership; he is deliberately contrasting Jeroboam, who functions as the paradigmatic apostate king (e.g. 1 Kgs 15:34; 16:19, 26; 22:52; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29), with Josiah, who represents the climactic model of covenant faithfulness.
Some feminist literature reads Ruth as a text that supports patriarchal culture, while elsewhere in God’s Yes to Women, Erickson reads Ruth as working against that same culture.[39] This demonstrates the instability of feminist readings of Ruth. Neither reading does full justice to the text. Ruth clearly shows initiative (Ruth 1:16–17; 2:2; 3:1–9), but succeeds by working within the social structures of her world rather than overthrowing them (2:8–13; 3:9–13; 4:1–12). There is nothing in the book that clearly shows either Naomi or Ruth rebelling against the patriarchal culture of the day. In fact, the book ends with Ruth married and Naomi joyously caring for her grandchild while her friends praise God (4:13–17). The picture in Ruth is more of harmony between the sexes, especially when godly men such as Boaz look out for poor and dispossessed women such as Ruth and Naomi (2:8–12, 14–16, 20; 3:10–13; 4:9–10).[40]
Esther is a force to be reckoned with, who shows courage, resilience, wisdom and agency (Esth. 4:15–17; 5:1–8; 7:1–6; 8:3–8).[41] She inhabits a world ruled by men, where women are appraised by men and valued for their beauty (1:10–22; 2:2–4, 8–9, 12–17). But the oppressive structure she confronts is not simply patriarchy; it is Persian imperial power and its genocidal hostility towards the Jews (3:8–15; 4:7–8). Remarkably, Esther does this largely by working within the patriarchal structures of the Persian court as a queen who shows deference to her king (5:1–8; 7:1–6; 8:3–8).[42] God saves his people by working through both Esther and Mordecai, who are “coheroes, each contributing in ways that are congruent with their gender roles in the world of biblical narrative in the Persian period.”[43]
Arguably the hardest issue for egalitarian readings of the Old Testament to overcome is the sex-specific nature of the Old Testament priesthood. Firth correctly notes that “The priesthood was only for the men of one tribe out of the twelve tribes.”[44] The priesthood is assigned to Aaron and his sons and subsequently transmitted through Aaronic descent (Exod. 28:1; 29:1–9; Lev. 8–9; 21:1–24; Num. 3:1–10; 18:1–7). Firth also rightly notes that the Old Testament priesthood is fulfilled in Jesus.[45] But it should be noted that the New Testament does not argue from this fulfilment to the opening of all ecclesiastical offices to both sexes. Even though, as we have seen, women show remarkable initiative, leadership, courage and prophetic authority in the Old Testament, not every office is interchangeable between the sexes.
This article has been an attempt to read relevant Old Testament texts in their canonical context and to exegete them faithfully.[46] The goal has been to let the texts speak on their own terms. There is little evidence for the claim that the texts surveyed support Christian women preaching to mixed gender congregations or holding ecclesiastical offices. There is even less evidence that these heroic Old Testament women were working “against the grain of the patriarchal conditions that were set by the fall.”[47] God has done, and continues to do, amazing and eternally significant things through women. Women in the Old Testament (and the New) have considerably more agency, authority, and theological significance than some traditional readings have acknowledged. But their agency, their skills, and the ways God uses them do not automatically answer the modern ecclesiological question of whether certain positions and functions within the contemporary church are restricted by gender.
[1] Jill Firth, “Disney Princesses, Superheroes, Influencers, and Women of the Old Testament,” in God’s Yes to Women: Why the Bible’s Vision of Partnership Is Good News for Us All, ed. Anna Boxwell, Amy J. Erickson, and Laura Rademaker (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2026), 25. One of the surprising weaknesses of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is that, despite its breadth and theological conservativism, it contains no essay devoted specifically to women in the Old Testament. See John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991).
[2] For example, Linda L. Belleville, “Women Leaders in the Bible,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, 2nd ed., ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 111–115.
[3] The conclusions in question are not withheld by other authors in the same volume. For example, see Michael F. Bird, “Leadership, Teaching, and Women,” in God’s Yes to Women, 87.
[4] Andrew Cameron, “A Bigger Picture,” in God’s Yes to Women, 130.
[5] For example, Esther (Esth. 4:13–16; 5:1–8; 7:1–6), Rahab (Josh. 2:1–21), the woman of Tekoa (2 Sam. 14:1–20), the wise woman of Abel Beth Maacah (2 Sam. 20:14–22), Shiphrah and Puah (Exod. 1:15–21), Pharaoh’s daughter (Exod. 2:5–10), Michal (1 Sam. 19:11–17), and Jehosheba (2 Kings 11:1–3).
[6] See Joel S. Baden, The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (New York: HarperOne, 2013); Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 2001); Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
[7] Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 2001), 53. For the methodological issues in these readings, see Hans Kristensen, “Was King David a Serial Killer?” The Bible: Archaeology and History, June 11, 2024.
[8] For example, see 1 Samuel 27, where David sides with the Philistines. In verse 8, David raids the enemies of Israel—the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites. Then, in verse 10, David is asked by Achish, the Philistine king, where he was raiding. David lies and says the Negev of Judah. But then, in verse 11, it says that he killed everyone among the people he raided so that no one could expose his lie.
[9] The irony is that Nabal is literally “fool” in Hebrew.
[10] Alice Bach, “The Pleasure of Her Text,” in The Pleasure of Her Text: Feminist Readings of Biblical and Historical Texts, ed. Alice Bach (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 26.
[11] See Abraham Malamat, “Military Rationing in Papyrus Anastasi I and the Bible,” in History of Biblical Israel: Major Problems and Minor Issues, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 353–61.
[12] Silvia Schroer, Wisdom Has Built Her House: Studies on the Figure of Sophia in the Bible, trans. Linda M. Maloney and William McDonough (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 79.
[13] Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 97.
[14] Dale Ralph Davis, 1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 257–60.
[15] Cameron, “A Bigger Picture,” 131.
[16] In the history of critical biblical studies, it was assumed by scholars that women had no place in the practice of Israelite religion. This has now been refuted. See Carol Meyers, Households and Holiness: The Religious Culture of Israelite Women (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 9.
[17] Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 25.
[18] For example, Genesis does not describe the appearance of Eve (2:21–25; 3:20), Hagar (16:1–16), Lot’s wife (19:15–26), Lot’s daughters (19:8, 30–38), Keturah (25:1–4), Dinah (30:21; 34:1–31), Tamar (38:6–30), Asenath (41:45, 50; 46:20), or Potiphar’s wife (39:7–20). The Hebrew of Genesis 29:17 describes Leah’s eyes as “weak” (רַכּוֹת, rakkôt), the meaning of which is uncertain but may suggest that her eyes lacked a glow or sparkle considered attractive in the Ancient Near East. The contrast with Rachel implies that Leah’s looks were considered inferior to her sister’s. See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994), 235; John H. Walton, Genesis, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 586.
[19] Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 26.
[20] Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 26.
[21] See Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 28–29. For similar interpretive approaches, see Belleville, “Women Leaders in the Bible”, 111; Athalya Brenner-Idan, The Israelite Woman: Social Role and Literary Type in Biblical Narrative, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 63–65; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), 45–51.
[22] Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 28–29. Contra Thomas R. Schreiner, “The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership: A Survey of Old and New Testament Examples and Teaching,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 216.
[23] Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 58.
[24] But she is not a “general, commander, war leader or warrior” as Ackerman argues. See Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 32.
[25] Daniel I. Block, Judges and Ruth, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman), 199.
[26] Webb, Judges, 193.
[27] George M. Schwab, Right in Their Own Eyes: The Gospel According to Judges (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing), 85.
[28] For a similar conclusion see John Piper and Wayne Grudem, “An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 72.
[29] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 26.
[30] Amy J. Erickson, “Reading the Bible as God’s Over-Arching Story,” in God’s Yes to Women, 7.
[31] Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible, 326.
[32] Belleville, “Women Leaders in the Bible”, 113.
[33] Brenner-Idan, The Israelite Woman, 61.
[34] Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 29.
[35] Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 317–318; Brenner-Idan, The Israelite Woman, 60.
[36] Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), 325.
[37] In 1 Kings 12:26–33 Jeroboam establishes the alternative cult at Bethel, whereas in 2 Kings 23:15–20 Josiah destroys that altar. Alongside establishing idolatrous worship, Jeroboam also ordains non-Levitical priests (1 Kgs 12:31), while as part of his reforms Josiah suppresses such priests (2 Kgs 23:8–9, 15, 19–20). Jeroboam institutes worship according to what “he had devised in his own heart” (1 Kgs 12:33). Josiah acts according to the written Torah/covenant (2 Kgs 22:13; 23:3, 21–24). Most strikingly, in 1 Kings 13:2 the man of God prophesies against Jeroboam’s altar: “A son named Josiah will be born to the house of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests of the high places” Roughly three centuries later, 2 Kings 23:15–20 explicitly narrates Josiah fulfilling that prophecy. The narrator even stops to tell us that this is precisely what the man of God had foretold (23:16–18).
[38] Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2006), 267.
[39] Amy-Jill Levine, “Ruth,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. C. A. Newsome and S. H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 206. Cf. Erickson, “Reading the Bible as God’s Over-Arching Story”, 7.
[40] On this point see Daniel I. Block, Ruth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 53.
[41] Some feminist readings of Esther see the book as undergirding rather than fighting against patriarchal ideology. For a summary and critique of various feminist perspectives see Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 205–211.
[42] For a rejection of the idea that Esther is either an “aberration from gender norms or an embodiment of male patriarchal values,” see Rebecca S. Hancock, Esther and the Politics of Negotiation: Public and Private Spaces and the Figure of the Female Royal Counselor (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013).
[43] Adele Berlin, Esther (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2001), lvii.
[44] Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 32. Firth is the only contributor in the volume who explicitly acknowledges the male-only character of the Old Testament priesthood, but even she does not explore its significance for the argument drawn from examples of female leadership elsewhere in the Old Testament.
[45] Firth, “Disney Princesses”, 32.
[46] Contra Bird’s claim that complementarians defend their position with “an unceasing festival of tortured exegesis.” See Bird, “Leadership, Teaching, and Women”, 87.
[47] Erickson, “Reading the Bible as God’s Over-Arching Story”, 7.
