Books on the role of women in the Scriptures continue to appear at an astonishing pace. Bilezikian invites nonspecialists “to evaluate arguments, to consider alternative views, and to arrive at independent conclusions” (p. 12). Most technical matters are discussed in extensive notes at the end of the book. Even though the author wants his readers to come to their own conclusions, he is an ardent supporter of women’s ordination. Throughout the work he subjects James Hurley’s arguments (Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective [Zondervan, 1981]) to critical examination, usually concluding that Hurley’s exegesis is faulty and unconvincing. Bilezikian says that the correct interpretive approach must distinguish between creation, the fall, and redemption. God’s intentions for the relationship between the sexes must be gleaned from creation and redemption, not from the fall. In both the creation and redemption, he argues, there is no evidence of male rule or dominance. Instead the relationship between men and women is one of equality and mutuality. The subjection of women to men is the result of the fall, a Satanic distortion of God’s ideal of mutuality and equality.
A sampling of Bilezikian’s exegetical conclusions is instructive. Both men and women are made in God’s image, proving their essential equality. The word “helper” (Gen. 2:18) cannot be used to defend female subservience to men because God is often described as “helper” in the Bible. The creation of Adam before Eve does not indicate male headship. Indeed such a theory is absurd, because the same logic would require that animals have authority over human beings since they were created first. Adam’s naming of Eve (2:23) does not support the hierarchical view (pp. 220-223), for the naming of the animals was not an indication of Adam’s authority. The purpose of the naming was to discover if Adam could find a partner, not to exercise dominion. Furthermore Adam does not really name Eve since the prior verses in Genesis indicate that God had already assigned the name “woman” to the female sex. Adam only acknowledges and agrees with what God had already done. Many of the OT texts on women reflect the results of the fall, showing male exploitation of women. But Jesus sinning his ministry unveils the newness of the gospel, consistently affirming that women and me are equal. The two programmatic texts in the rest of the NT are found in Acts 2:15-21; Gal 3:28. The inauguration of the new age includes a promise that both men and women will exercise prophetic gifts (Acts 2:17). And Gal 3:28 makes it clear that men and women are fundamentally equal. Any role distinctions would cancel out this grand affirmation.
What about the “problem passages” in Paul? 1 Cor 11:2-16 does not teach a difference in roles, for there is absolutely no evidence that the word kephale means “authority.” The word, as in the rest of the NT, means “source.” (The author uses the same argument, of course, in Ephesians 5). The passage is not on “gender roles but worship protocol” (p. 142). In fact vv 11-12 reveal that Paul believed that women should be full participants in worship. The command that women should be silent in 1 Cor 14:33b-35 is not a problem because Paul is quoting his opponents here, and he refutes their position in the subsequent verses. Eph 5:22 ff. is often used to support a hierarchical mode, but in fact the passage is a beautiful description of mutual submission. 1 Tim 2:12 is not an absolute prohibition against women teachers. The passage forbids women from teaching because they lack education. False teaching was a serious problem in 1 Timothy, and Paul did not want uneducated women (Eve was unprepared in the same way—cf. v14) to add to an already serous problem.
Although I applaud Bilezikian’s sincerity, I have serious reservations about th eequality of this book. I am not saying that a good argument cannot be made for women’s ordination (see e.g. M.J. Evans, Woman in the Bible [InterVarsity, 1983]). I am saying that this book does not adequately provide such logical argumentation. Obviously only a few things can be said in such a short review. The author has a penchant for making sweeping statements, insisting for example that the word kephale never means “authority” in the NT (pp. 137-138, 157-162, 239-240). It seems to me that he is forcing the text into a predetermined mold when he denies that “authority” is the meaning for kephale in Eph 1:22, for the context clearly stresses Christ’ s enthronement over all of creation (see vv 20-21). The question of whether kephale means “source” or “authority” in other passages also deserves much more careful treatment.
The greatest weakness of the book, in my opinion, is the unmitigated confidence of the author. I consistently got the impression that any “objective” reader would easily see that the hierarchical view is wrong. I never sensed that Bilezikian really struggled with the opposing point of view, and the work lacked the reserve and balance characteristic of the book by Evans cited above. Indeed the work has a tone suggesting that if one believes in the role differentiation, then one agrees with the oppression of women. But most scholars who believe in some kind of hierarchy also assert that men and women are fundamentally equal because both are made in the image of God. Differences in role do not necessarily imply differences in worth, or that men are more important than women.
Sometimes Bilezikian’s statements are shockingly simplistic. He suggests that rape and prostitution (p. 36) are due to a theory of male headship. Clearly, such evils are more complex than this. Is it really true that most rapists are motivated or even influenced by a doctrine of male headship? His comment on Luke 11:27-28 is anachronistic to an extreme. A woman says that the one who nursed and bore Jesus was blessed. Bilezikian suggests that Jesus rebuked the woman because she did not give thanks for Mary as a “person.” She may have even thought that “women are only baby machines” (p. 94). Many feminists today may have responded that way, but I doubt that a Palestinian woman of the first century harbored such thoughts. We tend to forget that children were considered to be a blessing and the lack thereof a reproach (Luke 1:25). And Jesus rebuked the woman because she was exalting sentimentality over obedience, not because of her view of women. I fear that these two examples pinpoint the real problem of the book. It is not grounded on historical exegesis but on modern presuppositions. These presuppositions and experiences cause the author to read his theology into the text (pp. 8-13). The question of how women should function in ministry today is complex and difficult, but this book fails to tackle the exegetical issues with enough depth to quality as an effective study.
