Tuesday, February 18, 2014


A Challenge for Proponents of Female Submission to Prove Their Case from the Bible

by Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, Professor Emeritus, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL

“Open my eyes that I may see
Glimpses of truth Thou hast for me.
Place in my hands the wonderful Key
That shall unclasp and set me free”

The purpose of this challenge is to prompt Christians to grapple with biblical facts rather than to accept traditional assumptions about female roles. What is at stake is not the role of women as much as the definition of the church as authentic biblical community. Is it possible for a local church to aspire to define itself as biblical community when more than half its constituency is excluded from participating in the most significant aspects of its life?

In the course of history, the church has often lost its way. For instance, during a thousand years, the church forgot something as crucial as the way of salvation and replaced it with methods of salvation by works that never worked. The biblical teaching was finally recovered by the Reformers just a few centuries ago.

Likewise, many present-day Christians believe that, along the way, the church has lost its own definition as community and replaced it with false definitions that reduce it to the status of institution, establishment, hierarchy, corporation and programs. This challenge provides an incentive to help Christians rediscover for themselves the biblical definition of the church as God’s community of oneness.

To anyone who might be tempted to think that this challenge is a feminist plot to subvert the traditional church, it should be pointed out that feminism is a quest for equal rights and equal power. A basic premise of this presentation is the exact opposite, the belief that the Bible requires all Christians to pursue relationships of mutual submission and of reciprocal servanthood.

An effective approach to tackle this challenge would be to go through this document one page at a time, to check the references with an open Bible at hand, and to search the Scriptures in order to supply the requested references.


Cite a text from the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 that enjoins or entitles men to exercise authority or leadership over women, or that designates men as “head” or “spiritual head” over women.

The Facts

There is not a hint, not even a whisper about anything like a hierarchical order existing between man and woman in the creation account of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2. In fact, the exact opposite is  clearly taught in these two chapters. Both man and woman were made in God’s image (1:26-27) and they both participated in God-assigned ministries without any role distinctions (1:28).

The creation order established oneness, not hierarchy (2:24). The first indication of a hierarchical order between man and woman resulted from the entrance of sin into the world (3:16). The subordination of women to men was not part of God’s original design. It resulted from the violation of God’s creation order.

The use of the word “helper” for the woman reinforces the relation of non-hierarchical complementarity that existed between the man and the woman prior to the fall (2:18). In the language of the Old Testament, a “helper” is one who rescues others in situations of need. This designation is often attributed to God as our rescuer. The word denotes not domesticity or subordination but competency and superior strength (Ex. 18:4; Deut. 33:26, 29; Psalm 33:20, 70:5, etc.).

According to the text, the woman was instrumental in rescuing the man from being alone and, therefore, from not being yet the community of oneness that God had intended to create with both of them (Gen. 1:27). As “helper,” she pointedly enabled him to become with her the community that God had intended to establish through their union.

The word “helper” is used specifically in this context of God’s deliberation to create community (2:18). The biblical text becomes violated when the word “helper” is wrenched away and lifted out of this specific context to be given other meanings that demean women by reducing them to the level of “complements” or docile conveniences created to improve the quality of male life.

In the account of the created order within which every relation of authority is carefully spelled out (1:26, 28; 2:17), there is not the slightest suggestion of a structure of authority existing between the man and the woman. Instead, the explicit evidence provided in those texts describes both as participating cooperatively in reflecting the image, and both fulfilling jointly the tasks of rulership and dominion without the necessity of a structure of hierarchy between them.


Cite a text from the Bible that assigns women subordinate status in relation to men because Adam was created before Eve.

The Facts

In the first chapter of Genesis, the sequence of creation moves, in increasing levels of sophistication, from material things to plants, to animals and, finally, to humans. According to chapter two, the process culminates with the creation of the woman. Obviously, chronological primacy was not intended to denote superior rank. No such lesson is drawn within those two chapters from the fact that the man was created before the woman.

In 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, an argument is presented for women to wear a head covering during worship. It is based on the differences in status between men and women that derive from the fact that man was created first (v. 7-10).

But, according to the same text, all those considerations have been decisively swept aside “in the Lord,” that is, in the Christian community (v. 11). In the new covenant, both men and women are in a relation of originative interdependence since men must recognize that they owe their existence to women just as the woman was made from man. Only the primacy of God as creator of all has significance since all things come from him, including both men and women (v. 11-12). As a result of this leveling of the ground “in the Lord”, a covering is not even required of women since their hair is their covering (v. 15).

The ministry restrictions exceptionally placed on women in 1Timothy, chapter 2 are not based on the creation order. They are drawn from the temptation account. No conclusion is made in the text from the fact that Adam was formed first except for the one lesson that Adam was not deceived but Eve was and she became the first transgressor (v. 13-14).

Adam had been instructed about the prohibition relative to the tree directly from God while Eve was not yet in existence. For this reason, of the two, she was the one less prepared to face the tempter. He was present during the temptation episode but he remained silent (Gen. 3:6). Despite this disadvantage, she boldly engaged the tempter and she became deceived.

This illustration from the Genesis temptation story has nothing to do with assigning all women of all times a subordinate status in church life. It was cited in this epistle to make the point that untaught and unqualified individuals should not aspire to teaching functions or to positions of leadership. They should first become quiet learners (1 Tim. 2: 11-12).


Cite a text from the Bible that defines the headship of Christ to the church as a relation of authority or of leadership.

The Facts

The New Testament defines the headship ministry of Christ to the church as a servant relation designed to provide the church with life and growth. This headship is never presented as an authority or lordship position.

Eph. 1:22-23. Christ is supremely and universally sovereign, but as head for the church, it is not said that he rules over it. Instead, he provides his body with the fullness of him who fills all in all. He causes the church to grow and flourish.

Eph. 4:15-16. Christ as head provides the body with oneness, cohesion and growth. This is a servant-provider role, not one of rulership.

Eph. 5:23. Christ is head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. His headship to the church is defined as saviorhood which is biblically defined as a servant, self-sacrificing function, not a lordship role.

Col. 1:18. Christ is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead. As its head, Christ is the source of the church’s life.

Col. 2:19. Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows because it is nourished by him. He is servant-provider of life and growth to the church.

Obviously, Christ is Lord of all and therefore Lord of the church. But never does the New Testament define Christ’s relation to the church as its head in terms of lordship, authority or rulership. As head to the church, Christ is always the servant who gives the church all she needs to become his radiant Bride. So is the husband to his wife (Eph. 5:25-30), within a relationship of mutual submission (v. 21).

The word “head” used figuratively in the English language refers to boss, person in authority, leader. It never has that meaning in New Testament Greek. There are hundreds of references in the New Testament to religious, governmental, civic, familial and military authority figures. Not one of them is ever designated as “head.”

Even Christ, as “head” of all rule and authority, remains their original giver of life and fullness (Col. 2:10; 1:16). Similarly, Christ was never called “head” of the church until after his crucifixion, the supreme expression of his servant ministry as the giver of new life.

Whenever Christ is described as “head” to the church, his ministry is that of servant-provider. Similarly, as head to his wife, a husband is a servant-provider of life, of fullness and growth, not one who exercises authority over her.


Cite a text from the Bible that makes men head over women, or a husband head over his wife.

The Facts

There is no such statement in the Bible. The text in 1 Corinthians 11:3 is often cited as establishing a top-down hierarchy:  God over Christ--- Christ over man--- man over woman.

However, this biblical text must be radically dismembered and its components reshuffled in order to produce such results. The untouched biblical sequence is totally different and it does not present a hierarchical structure:  Christ, head of man--- man, head of woman--- God, head of Christ.

The teaching in this text concerns the concept of “head” as giver of life. In creation, Christ (as the Word, John 1:3) gave life to man; man to woman (as she was taken from him, Gen. 2:21-23); and in the incarnation, God gave life to Christ (Luke 1:35). This understanding of “head” as “provider of life” is consistent with the immediate context which deals with the significance of origination (1 Cor. 11:7-12).

The meaning of “head” as servant-provider of life in this text is also consistent with the headship passage in Ephesians 5:21-33. There, the church is described as being subject to Christ in the reciprocity of servanthood because Christ as head is also servant to the church as its Savior and as the source of its welfare. Saviorhood in the New Testament is not a lordship role but one of self-sacrifice in radical servanthood.

Likewise, the wife is servant to her husband as she submits to him because the husband is servant to her in radical headship as he gives himself up for her as Christ did for the church (v. 25-30).
Both the general concept of headship in the New Testament and this passage of Scripture are infused with the notions of mutual submission (v. 21) and, therefore, of reciprocal servanthood. Such biblical teachings reduce the imposition of hierarchical relations between husbands and wives to irrelevance, if not to abuse in their relationship.


Cite a New Testament text according to which men are given unilateral authority over women or are permitted to act as their leaders.

The Facts

Once the fall shattered the God-given oneness between man and woman, they both faced a dysfunctional relationship. The woman was warned that, because of the disruption of the fall, the husband would rule over her (Gen. 3:16). Oneness would turn into abuse. But no mandate was ever given to the man to claim this rulership over the woman.

There is no allowance made in the New Testament or license given for any one believer to wield authority over another adult believer. The pledge exacted from brides in an older wedding ceremony, “Wilt thou obey him…?” had no biblical warrant.

There is no text in Scripture that enjoins wives to obey their husbands. The call is for mutual subjection (Eph. 5:21). Both wives and husbands must relate to each other “in the same way” as slaves submit to their masters (1 Peter 2:18; 3:1, 7 NIV) in order to follow in the steps of Christ, their supreme example (2:21).

The New Testament singularly cites the case of Sarah who obeyed her husband Abraham (1 Peter 3:6). Sarah’s case was cited in full knowledge of the fact that Abraham pointedly obeyed his wife just as often as she obeyed him, once even under God’s specific command (Gen. 16:2, 6; 21:11-12).
Christians are solemnly forbidden by their Lord to establish among themselves structures of authority similar to the hierarchical systems that prevail in secular society. Those who aspire to attain such positions of leadership must, instead, become servants and slaves of those over whom they wish to wield authority (Matt. 20:25-28).

Leadership is always defined in the New Testament as shared leadership. In church life, leadership is a team function entrusted to a plurality of persons such as elders. These act as servants who have recourse to the exercise of authority only exceptionally when required to do so because of disciplinary or crisis situations and then, only corporately.

In marriage, husbands and wives are bonded in a relationship of non-hierarchical complementarity within which each partner brings to the union his or her leadership gifts in a structure of shared leadership. (For resolving biblically situations of decisional impasses, see Bilezikian, Beyond Sex Roles, pp. 212-214).

As stated in the title, a challenge worthy of consideration I would think.

Paul B.


Aussie John said...


".... a challenge worthy of consideration I would think."

I cannot find words positive enough to voice my agreement!

Every congregation I taught knew that one of my favourite verses of Scripture, is Acts 17:11, by which I urged them to be Berean-like.

That is no more, or less, than what the professor is challenging.

It has always seemed incredibly strange,to me,that so many congregations have given themselves the name "Berean Bible Church", and yet,seem completely ignorant of what the Scriptures teach, relying completely on what "the pastor said", and, as a result, suffer the dark hands of tradition weighing them down.

My own thought is that the issue of women, is only a beginning, causing me to believe the secularized "church"of today has a long, long, way to go before it resembles the "noble" Bereans.

Paul Burleson said...

Aussie J,

When you mentioned the hearers in Berea you hit on one of my favorite groups mentioned in scripture.

One reason is it was just last spring that I stood at the traditional sport where it is said Paul preached to them and I spoke from the Acts 17 passage at the invitation of Wade who was our tour guide and teacher. What a thrill it was for me.

But another reason they are one of my favorite groups is because of the role women played in their life. A remarkable little insight often overlooked in Luke's account of the Berean people responding to the gospel is that the women are mentioned first in Acts 17:12, "As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men." [NIV]

This is totally contrary to that culture and even Luke's reporting of the Thessalonican people in Acts 17:4. where the men were mentioned first. But it sure does indicate the importance of women in the ministry and success of Paul the Apostle and the place of women in the Berean mindset.

Aussie John said...


You are spot on regarding the mention of women in Acts 17:11. The men of the day had no problem with their women being with them in Acts 1:14!

Many years ago I asked a pastor whether he would have any problem in welcoming women into membership if they had been converted under the ministry of a woman.

His reply,"A woman preaching the gospel! You're not serious!"

I know we have some much valued brothers and sisters in Christ, who are thankful the mode by which they first heard was the voice of a woman!

Victorious said...

I have read Gilbert Bilezikian's challenge many times where it's posted on the God's Word to Women website. God's Word to Women is a book written by Katherine Bushnell who was a scholar of both Hebrew and Greek as well as fluent in seven languages. The last edition of her book was published in 1923 but has been reprinted since then and can currently be found on the God's Word to Women's website.

I'd like to comment on just one particular truth in this post where I feel error concerning men and women originates since most complementarians refer to Genesis 3 as the initial support for the authority and submission issue so prevalent in today's churches.

Bilezikian correctly defines a “helper” is one who rescues others in situations of need.

In the reading of Gen. 1, one cannot overlook the phrase, “and God saw it was good” and “God saw it was good” and “God saw it was good” five times during the creation story. Everything He created functioned as intended until something was “not good” in Gen. 2:18. That God knew what He was doing when He created Adam goes without saying. Why then, if He knew Adam would be lonely, did He not create a partner for him at the same time He formed Adam?

I believe that Adam had already begun to exhibit an arrogance toward God and that was what God noted was “not good” for him to be alone. The word “alone” properly means “separated” or “separation.” Who was Adam separated from but God. Adam obviously was not functioning as intended as he was mandated to guard/protect the garden but we find the serpent entering to cause havoc. Of great interest is that immediately after God determined it was not good for Adam to be alone, He begins to form animals! Why the interruption or delay in forming the one who would help him? Scripture says He wanted to “to see what he would call them.” I'm of the opinion that the names Adam chose confirmed to God Adam's growing arrogance and the desire to dominate.

Eve is formed with the precise characteristics or qualities Adam needed in his separation. Those qualities may have already been present in Adam but were being ignored. They could not longer be ignored when the woman is brought face to face with the one who needed to see them.

These facts reasonably explain why God warned Eve about Adam's tendency to dominate or desire to rule. If she “turned to him” he would continue the control and power he exhibited in naming the animals.

Of utmost importance is Bilezikian's observation that nowhere in scripture is a mandate for males to have power, rule, or authority over any woman. When challenged with this absence, most will glibly point to scriptures that speak to women and make the erroneous assumption that by default they are at the top of hierarchical structure.

I'm not certain this theory is mine or Bushnell's as it's been so many years since I've read her book, but it's reasonable, logical and true in my opinion.

Thanks for this post, Paul. It's significance is urgently needed today lest half of the body of Christ will not rise to the important function of providing the help the other half needs. Women are not helping by remaining passive and complacent in their current position in the church.

That women in the church has become an issue that needs such a challenge grieves my very soul. The only thing that grieves me more is reading the absolutely absurd list by John Piper of 83 ways women can serve in the church. :(

Paul Burleson said...


What a thoughtful and delightful comment. Thanks.

I'm not sure as to my full agreement or even understanding of your statements about why things were done as recorded, to your credit you describe them as "theory," but they are certainly as plausible as any thing else I heard of late. I will have to spend some time and energy researching those things.

Our agreement on the equal footing relationally of male and female from the beginning is without question in my mind. Again, thanks.