Beyond Sex Roles: A Guide for the Study of Female Roles in the Bible by Gilbert Bilezikian and The Role Relationship of Men and Women: New Testament Teaching by George W. Knight III

Books on “the question about women” continue to pour forth from evangelical presses at a flood pace, and common ground between what have been called the “traditionalist” and the “egalitarian” positions does not seem to be surfacing. These two books are no exception. Bilezikian writes from an unabashedly egalitarian position, calling for “deliberate programs of depatriarchalization” (p. 211) in our religious institutions and “a systematic effort of deprogramming” in our thinking so that we do away with “regard[ing] the opposite sex as opposite” (p. 210; italics his). Knight, on the other hand, attempts to present “the biblical evidence first for submission and headship in marriage, and then for submission and headship in the church, as well as answers to the major objections raised against these arguments” (p. 6). Neither seeks a middle road, both are evangelical, and each firmly believers the Bible supports his position.

Bilezikian has written a book that purports to be in a “study-guide format. . . designed to either individual investigation or group work” (p. 12). It is difficult, however, to see how there is much of the nature of a study guide in the book. In the second chapter he does introduce a good number of the paragraphs with “Lesson:”, but nowhere is the significance of this practice explained, and it is dropped in succeeding chapters. At the end of many sections there is the curious phrase “To summarize in plain language” followed by a brief summary of the previous arguments (which are not always very plain, stylistically speaking). There is no workbook provided, and no study questions are offered in the text. In fact the book has no helps of any kind other than a very full 20-page bibliography (which promises to indicate with an asterisk works of “a more or less [minimal, moderate, radical] nontraditional position” [p. 271] but neglects to do so in its historical section) and an “Introductory Reading List” that curiously lists S. Clark’s massive Man and Woman in Christ but fails to list more basic works like Women and the Word of God by S. Foh and Woman in the Bible by M. Evans (these are found in the bibliography). Indices, particularly a Scripture index, would be a help in later editions if the book really is intended as a study tool.

The book sees the outline of Biblical history in terms of creation—fall—redemption as crucial to the interpretation of the Bible’s teaching about women (pp. 15-19). Everything in Scripture should be read with this framework in mind. The book is divided roughly according to this scheme, looking at passages in Genesis 1—3 first and moving to the NT teaching on the subject last. One problem with Bilezikian’s presentation of this framework for his study is that he seems to imply that his use of it is unique. Though he sees that pattern as supportive of an egalitarian position of present-day roles for women, others have used exactly the same pattern to substantiate the more traditional position.

It is in its exegesis that the book demonstrates its greatest problems. Its avowed aim “is for the nonspecialized reader to be able to follow the discussion step by step, to evaluate arguments, to consider alternative views, and to arrive at independent conclusions” (p. 12). The book, however, rarely seems to do any of these things itself, and so one must ask how it can expect the reader to do them. It almost never discusses varying interpretations of the text and often pushes to the point of absurdity insignificant details of a story in order to force the egalitarian position. One example among many is the portrayal the book gives of Jesus’ dialogue with Martha about the resurrection (John 11:23-27). According to Bilezikian, Martha “becomes the recipient of the most emphatic, the most explicit, and the most comprehensive teaching on the subject of resurrection.” She also “becomes the first person in history to be given an understanding of the correlation between the person of Jesus. . . and the final resurrection” (p. 101). How does Bilezikian know any of this? The passage nowhere states that Martha enjoyed such privileges, and yet the confidence with which Bilezikian asserts that she has seems to allow for no discussion of the matter. In fact the story could (and I believe should) be read in such a way that it shows Martha either deeply misunderstanding Jesus’ teaching or deeply disbelieving it (cf. 11:39-40). The more important point, however, is that the story really has very little to say about women and Jesus at all. The disciples also misunderstood or disbelieved Jesus’ teaching about many things, including the resurrection (cf. e.g. Matt 16:21-23).

Bilezikian, in his zeal to show that his position is thoroughly Biblical, has actually damaged the egalitarian position by sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly misleading the reader. Thus he states that the Syrophoenician woman (Matt 15:21-28=Mark 7:24-30) is the “first Gentile convert” (p. 100). How does he know she even became a convert, much less the first one? And, if one grants that she is a believer, why is the centurion of Matt 8:5-13=Luke 7:1-10 not the first one? Because he is a man? Again, the woman who cries out how blessed Jesus’ mother was (Luke 11:27-28) was perhaps “saying with a tinge of envy, ‘Your mother is fortunate. Having had a child like you gives significance to her life. I wish I could have been your mother. My life might have amounted to something. We women are only baby machines. Once in a while, one of us will luck out and produce a winner. Your mother has something to be proud of’” (p. 94). According to Bilezikian: “The woman’s statement reveals something of the feminine mind-set at the time” (p. 95). But all that is being revealed in this kind of fanciful speculation is an inability on the part of the author to separate fact from fantasy. He claims that “the fact that she could only relate the ministry of Jesus to the significance it had for His mother bespeaks of a benighted view of women’s role in life. In His answer and with one sentence, Jesus catapulted women along with men, both shoulder to shoulder, to the cutting edge of God’s program for the redemption of the world” (p. 95). This sort of hyperbole is masquerading as exegesis. Example after example abounds in the book of speculation presented as fact (cf. e.g. the supposition that the Queen of Sheba “will be given judgment over a whole generation of men and condemn them for their spiritual obduracy” [p. 86]. Were no women obdurate enough to reject Jesus?), avoidance of problem passages (reference to the fact that Jesus chose only males for apostles and that he himself was male is relegated to a footnote) and clouded interpretation of others (the assumed headship of the husband over the “perfect woman” of Proverbs 31 is completely reversed into an “implication. . . that he is well respected in the community because of his wife’s industry and competency” [p. 77]).

Though allowance can be made for Bilezikian’s desire to be popular in his style and method, there really is no excuse to make the exegetical decisions he often makes. Inexcusable, too, it the scorn he often heaps upon the traditionalist position in place of solid arguments against it. This is especially evident in the footnotes, where Bilezikian has chosen to dialogue with only one book—J.B. Hurley’s Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective—as “one of the more representative” of the books teaching a traditionalist position. He accuses Hurley of “contrived exegesis” (p. 241) and “deviant interpretations” (p. 231). In one extraordinary statement referring to Hurley he says, “When the Scriptures do not conform to their prejudices, some people prefer to rewrite the Bible rather than revising their presuppositions” (p. 240). He accuses Hurley of sentimentality when the latter says that woman was created to end the loneliness of man (p. 216). But presumably it is not sentimental to say that the “discreet development of the theme [of women involved in redemption] suggests the restrained hand of a woman” and the “nurturing, humane, compassionate tone of Hebrews” points to female authorship of that epistle (pp. 266-267).

All in all, this book is badly in need of revision whether intended for a scholarly or for a popular audience. At the very least the implication should be removed that anyone who has doubts about the ordination of women or the role of women in the authority structures of the family is foolish or thoroughly blinded by his own prejudices. At best the book should be rewritten, taking into account more arguments than Hurley’s and refuting them directly.

In comparison, the slim book by Knight is much more irenic in tone. It was published originally in 1977 and is not reissued in a slightly revised form. The major difference between the two editions is the addition of an appendix by W. Grudem on the word kephale. A second appendix by Knight himself on the idea of office in the NT and its relationship to the ministry of women remains largely unchanged, as does the text of the book. Knight has an introductory chapter, two chapters on submission and headship in marriage and the Church respectively, and a final chapter of conclusions. His thesis is not new (he spends some time defending his contention that it is the historic Christian position), but it is usually clearly stated. He believes that the NT teaches an equality between men and women of essence and standing before God but that their “role relationship” requires a hierarchy of authority with man placed over woman. He stresses that “the momentous words of Gal 3:28 provide us with the framework within which any and all differences or role relationships must be seen and considered” (p. 7) and that this is reiterated in Col 3:10-11, which demonstrates that “image [of God] quality is equally present in male and female. Thus both by creation and now also by the redemption that renews that created image quality, the unity and equality of male and females are most fundamentally affirmed” (p. 8).

Knight then goes on, however, to spend the majority of his time answering objections to the thesis he presents concerning the role relationship of men and women in NT. One of the strengths of the book is that it at least touches on almost all the major objections to the traditionalist position whether textual or philosophical. Objections from the analogy of slavery to the obvious gifts women have are discussed, though sometimes with little more than a brief paragraph in answer. In fact that chief objection to the book is probably its brevity. Assumptions are made and passing comments are offered that cry out for much more detailed treatment. For instance, the very crucial fact the ‘ezer means “helper” but more often than not is used of God helping man is passed over by Knight with the rhetorical question: “Cannot a word have a different nuance when applied to God from what it had when applied to human beings?” (p. 31). The answer to this is of course “Yes,” but the question is really “Does it have this different nuance?”, and this question is not addressed. Again, Knight makes the comment that “prophesying, an activity in which the one prophesying is essentially a passive instrument through which God communicates, does not necessarily imply or involve an authority or headship of the one prophesying over others” (p. 34). Such a division between the instrument of God’s using and that instrument’s authority is very difficult to make and, again, begs for clarification. He does not discuss the role of men and women in society (the workplace, secular government, etc.), and his discussion of woman’s role in the Church is brief and somewhat unclear, given the importance of that question and its difficulty in the NT (cf. p. 37 where Knight concludes that women are not to hold the office of deacon but, as wives [only?], are to be involved “in the diaconal area”). These few negatives, however, should not outweigh the positives of this book. It is easily the best brief treatment of the classical conservative position on the question.

Grudem’s appendix (one-third of the entire book) is more valuable than may at first appear because it is so comprehensive on its topic. He has surveyed the classical literature in depth in order to determine whether the commonly held assumption that kephale (“head”) sometimes means “source” is in fact true and his conclusion is that it does not (at least in the 2,336 examples surveyed). Grudem’s work is worth the price of the book, even if one owns the first edition. It is a good piece of exegesis and will demand a hearing from those who too glibly translate “source” in the 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 passages.

In fact there is actually only one place where fault can be found with his essay. Near the end of his piece Grudem acknowledges that possible raising of “one final objection. Someone might agree that our survey is correct in demonstrating that the sense ‘source’ never occurred in Greek literature outside the Bible, but this person might still argue that ‘source’ seems to ’make sense’ or ‘fit the context well’ in certain New Testament passages. Therefore (it might be argued), we can still take kephale to mean ‘source’ in certain New Testament passages where that meaning seems to fit the context” (p. 78). He then goes on to deny this possibility because it assumes a situation in which Paul “would use a common word in a sense never before known in the Greek-speaking world and expect his readers to understand it, even though he gave them no explicit explanation that he was using the word in a new way” (p. 78). But what is so hard to believe about this? Though the number of coined words in the NT grows fewer and fewer all the time because of new discoveries, there is still good evidence that Paul did this from time to time. Why not metaphors, since the “creative” aspect of making metaphors is even more recognized than that of making new words? Context is the major means of determining the nuance of a metaphor anyway—and has not Paul done something very different in having a body grow out of a head in the first place in Eph 4:16 and Col 2:19? There is no reason why one could not see at least in these two passages a similarly strange, new metaphor of nourishment and even “source.” That of course is not to say that one should see such a metaphor there. Even more unlikely is the application of this idea to the passage in Eph 5:23 where the idea of hypotassein (“to submit”) seems to settle the interpretation of that passage in favor of kephale as “ruler” or, better, “person in authority over.”

All these authors share one belief in common: There is no real middle ground on the issue of female authority over men in the Church. In spite of all the work that has been done so far, more needs to be done to reconcile God’s apparent use of women in positions of authority over men (e.g. Huldah the prophetess in 2 Kings 22, Deborah the judge in Judges 4—5, and Priscilla the deaconess [?] in Romans 16) with his apparent injunctions against their holding such positions (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11; 1 Timothy 2). The two books reviewed here contribute to the debate in some significant ways but do not by any means solve all the problems.