As you have probably already gathered from my recent series on Biblical womanhood, I claim neither the label of “egalitarian” nor the label of “complementarian” for myself. Because our modern-day church culture is one in which you are expected to be either one or the other (with no third option), this may not seem like a possibility. But I assure you that it is. In fact, I personally believe that when you begin to find issues with either side of a debate, the only alternative is for you to refuse both. Otherwise you will inadvertently be saying things about yourself and your beliefs that are not truly representative of what you actually do believe. With that in mind, here is why I’m neither an egalitarian nor a complementarian.
- Boxes, labels, and systems are man-made.
Whether it is the label “egalitarian”, “complementarian”, “Calvinist”, “Arminian”, “Baptist” or something else entirely, our boxes, labels, and systems are all man-made. They are not Scriptural. While the beliefs held within each system do have their own set of Scriptures to which they point as being their proof texts, they are still a set of Scriptures which man has taken (oftentimes to the negligence of other passages!) and combined together along with his own viewpoint and wisdom to come up with a system of belief.
Now, please don’t mishear me – this is not being said in a spirit of attack against anyone who adheres to any of these labels (I myself have held to many of them over the years!). Neither am I saying that people who take on labels are terrible Christ-followers or necessarily guilty of manhandling the Word of God. I am also not saying that creeds or catechisms or systematic theologies cannot be helpful or important. What I am saying, however, is that rather than strictly adhering to and following a system of belief, packaged together and labeled by man, why don’t we instead just look to the Word of God alone and believe what it says? That brings me to my next point,
- When you adhere to a man-made system, you are far more likely to willingly ignore, explain away, or change passages of Scripture that do not fit into your box, rather than simply allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.
Just ask me how I know this is true! It’s because I have been there, done that, and it was not until I was finally willing to simply accept, study, and bring together all 66 books of the Bible that I more fully understood Biblical womanhood as it is actually portrayed in Scripture and not as how one camp or another wishes for it to be portrayed. Only then did I feel freedom and peace when reading the Word. Because up until that point, I had to wrestle with or ignore or explain away whole passages of the Word because they did not fit into the complementarian framework I espoused for years. The same goes for egalitarianism. Their proof texts aside, there are other passages which egalitarians must reckon with that do not easily fit into their belief system. This is always what logically follows when we care more about upholding our systems than we do simply the Word of God itself.
- Said systems are always formed in response to something else and therefore are typically fear-based more than they are Bible-based.
Complementarianism as a belief system began in 1987 with the formation of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, founded by John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and others. It began as a response to evangelical feminism (i.e. egalitarianism) and, as such, I believe went too far into an unBiblical extreme in an effort to forcefully reject some of the negative cultural and church issues brought about by feminism. This happens all the time. Problems are uncovered in one construct or another so, in order to fight it, we run as far as we can in the opposite direction. I’ve spoken about this issue a number of times both in my book and here on my blog, because I’ve made that same mistake myself.
What we ought to be doing instead, however, is simply resting in the Word of God, believing that His Word and His wisdom far surpass anything man could come up with. Rather than reading into it ideas which aren’t there in order to “fight” an issue in our day, we ought to instead simply purpose to be as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) who took everything they heard and then compared it to the Word of God to see if it were true. We need to be diligent and faithful students of the whole canon of Scripture (2 Timothy 2:15) and allow it alone to form the basis of our beliefs – not a belief system of man that we want to uphold if at all possible.
- Both complementarianism and egalitarianism are unBiblical.
Let’s first begin with egalitarianism. I am not an egalitarian because egalitarians are of the belief that there are no inherent differences between the genders in how they are to operate or in which responsibilities they are to fulfill. An egalitarian believes that men and women are, more or less, interchangeable in regards to roles and functions in the home and church (something that is clearly rendered false via a brief survey of the Word).
Another reason why I am not an egalitarian is because egalitarianism is just another word for evangelical feminism which, if you have studied the history and philosophy of feminism for over a decade as I have, you know is an oxymoron.
Egalitarians do get a lot right (i.e. I agree with them in their interpretation of Genesis 1:26-28 ,which shows that man and woman were both given leadership, dominion, and subduing responsibilities; I also agree with their emphasis on the unBiblical nature of patriarchy as well as their propensity to point out strong, influential, inspiring women of the Word like Deborah and Priscilla). However, they have enough wrong in their system of belief and are linked to the dangerous philosophy of feminism enough to render me unable to label myself an egalitarian.
Let’s turn now to some of the problems with complementarianism. There are many, but for the sake of time, I will seek to condense it into but a few main points.
- The false belief that women are subordinate to men.
I already addressed this issue last week, so I won’t rehash all of it again. Suffice it to say that because the founders of complementarianism continually insist on referring to women as being subordinate, I cannot take on the label of complementarian. To say that an entire half of the human race is lower in rank or position and less important than the other half is no small issue (and yet that is exactly what the founders of complementarianism say: “The order of creation (male created first) indicates God’s design of male priority in the male/female relationship.“). Make no mistake – this affects everything and is, in part, the reason why so many cases of abuse are running rampant in both complementarian and patriarchal circles. When you begin to believe that women are less-than or inferior (even subconsciously), you begin to justify various forms of abuse against them. While I’m not an egalitarian, that belief system does have this going for it: there are very few cases of abuse, objectification, or cat-calling of women in that sphere!
- The false, borderline-heretical doctrine of ESS.
The belief that women are subordinate to men stems from complementarianism’s foundational belief that God the Son is eternally subordinate to God the Father. Grudem and the other original founders of complementarianism have all concluded that without the doctrine of ESS, there is no complementarianism as a system of belief. That fact alone is more than enough for me to no longer take on the label of complementarian.
I touched on this a bit last week, but I promised to dive into it further this week: the doctrine of ESS (Eternal Subordination of the Son) is the false belief that not only was Christ submissive to the plan and will of the Father while on earth, being willing to take on human form and go to the cross for us (which He clearly was – Luke 22:42, Philippians 2:5-8), but that the Son was, is, and always will be in a position of subordination to the Father. This is completely unBiblical, for, as we saw last week, to use the word “subordinate” to refer to the Son is to say that He is lower in rank and importance in comparison to the Father, and this is simply not true. The Father and the Son are One. Fully equal, on the same page, entertaining the same will and purpose, and ontologically both fully God. We would do well to not simply stop at Philippians 2:8, but continue on through verses 9-11 which clearly refer to the lordship and dominion of Christ.
ESS apologist Wayne Grudem writes,
When did the idea of headship and submission begin then? The idea of headship and submission never began! It has always existed in the eternal nature of God Himself. And in this most basic of all authority relationships, authority is not based on gifts or ability (for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal in attributes and perfections). It is just there. […] Within the being of God, you have both equality and authority.[10]
ESS becomes particularly problematic right here when it does not simply stop at referring to Jesus’ time on earth as being the time in which He took on a submissive role but instead crosses over into dealing with matters of ontological nature (“ontological” meaning “the nature of being”). Grudem and others will try to divide the idea of ontological subordination from what they refer to instead as “economic subordination”, in the hopes of denying any heretical adherence to the belief of ontological subordination in the Trinity, but their claims fall flat. Consider the insightful words of Wendy Alsup:
Note the parallel language of the joyful agreement and support of the Son eternally to the leadership of the Father and the female’s willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. If we are reading Grudem, Ware, and The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s position correctly, Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father and woman will be eternally subordinate to man in the New Creation.
Herein lies the problem. Grudem and Ware argue for submission of the Son on the basis of role. So far, so orthodox. But when they apply ESS to gender, they have tied submission to the essence of femaleness and not simply the role of being a wife. By necessity then, when they talk about the Son’s submission to the Father, it is almost impossible not to hear it as an ontological argument. Why? Because Bible-believing Christians know gender (more accurately, biological sex) to be an ontological category. We know that being female is an identity given by God and intrinsically bound up in the imago Dei. This is the fundamental argument against transgender positions: “So God made man[kind] in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.” ‘
When these leaders emphasize female submission instead of wifely submission, they are speaking of submission as if it were an ontological characteristic. Consider how John Piper answered a question on whether a woman should be a police officer.
“At the heart of mature manhood is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for, and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships. … At the heart of mature womanhood is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships. … it would be hard for me to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant … over men without violating their sense of manhood and her sense of womanhood.”
These leaders of The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood believe that this benevolent responsibility of man and joyful receiving from woman is the heart of mature manhood and womanhood – not roles for husbands and wives but the essence of the two genders, and they believe it holds still in the New Creation. So when these same men start talking about submission in the Trinity, it makes sense to import the categories they have already established back into the discussion. And they, not any of their detractors, have set this frame. If a woman is not fully female without submissiveness, how is Jesus fully God’s Son without it as well? That, friends, is by definition ontology.
And that is precisely why I will fight against the complementarian doctrine of ESS until the day I die.
- “Complementarianism” is just another word for “patriarchy”
I know this claim I’m making here is going to make some people who adhere to complementarianism very angry. I’ve been told by complementarians that complementarianism and patriarchy are not the same, and I used to believe that myself (in fact, when I adhered to patriarchy years ago, I thought that complementarianism was actually too liberal!). However, I have said it before, and I will say it again: the founders of a belief system are the only ones who get to define what their system of belief entails. With that in mind consider the words of the President of CBMW’s (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood – the group founded by Grudem which serves as the launching pad of complementarianism) Board of Directors, Owen Strachan,
The President of CBMW’s Board of Directors of CBMW, Owen Strachan, supports the term patriarchy on behalf of CBMW. He is also the son in law of Bruce Ware who is arguably the modern day inventor of the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine, which states that women shall be subordinate to men in eternity:
If complementarianism and patriarchy are, in essence, the same thing (and the founders themselves say they are), then this is another reason why I want absolutely nothing to do with it and will never again label myself a “complementarian”. Patriarchy is actually nothing more than a pagan Greek and Roman belief system which therefore has no place in Biblical Christianity. As I said last week, words have meaning and we have to be so careful what words we use and which labels we take on for ourselves.
Time for a Third Option?
I wholeheartedly agree with Rachel Miller that we need a new name. I can’t call myself an egalitarian and I can’t call myself a complementarian. Both are unbiblical (and, in the case of complementarianism, has far more false doctrine tied up with it than many people who refer to themselves as complementarians even realize or take the time to study through!). And while I am not a fan of boxes, labels, and systems for the reasons discussed above, it has become increasingly hard in recent years to make it clear what you believe and what you do and do not adhere to in an age in which it is believed in the church that you absolutely must be either an egalitarian or a complementarian.
Perhaps, at least for now, I will simply refer to myself as a Bible-believing Christian and leave it at that. After all, the Word of God is exceedingly abundantly better, truer, wiser and altogether perfect in comparison to all of the manmade systems out there. And I will happily rest in that.
~~~~~
If you enjoy studying the topic of Biblical womanhood, I invite you to band together with the other ladies who have gone through my free 7 day email course entitled Womanhood by God’s Design! You can sign up for the free course here.
I don’t know why we’d want to join ourselves to any “camp” or label. I think you are wise to reject “boxes”. I’m thankful that many years ago I was advised to look to scripture alone, not modern theologians for truth.
I think it’s fine to avoid putting yourself under a label. For years when people tried to find out what “denomination” I was , yes, it took longer to explain that there was no denomination that fit exactly what I believed but I think it’s been a great witnessing opportunity. After all, we don’t want to be instantly dismissed as, “Oh, they’re just a… insert-denomination-here”.
Apostle Paul said a long time ago how silly it was to split into followers of a certain camps. “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” 1 Cor. 1:12
you have a lot to learn and you really have no clue as to what you are talking about. The following is not even true
“Patriarchy is actually nothing more than a pagan Greek and Roman belief system which therefore has no place in Biblical Christianity. ”
We wrote about you at our website but we were blocked when we tried to give you a link to respond
All of the claims I made were backed by by quite a bit of research, direct quotes, etc.
I don’t know of any link and don’t know how you could have been blocked when trying to send it to me. You’re welcome to try again.
we have responded to both articles and as at the below website. The first is titled biblical womanhood and the second, our commentary
I read the “Does Patriarchy Have Pagan Roots” article. It reminded me very much of something I read in a Christian archaeology book which said that the Israelites learned the practice of sacrifice and burnt offerings from the Egyptians during their captivity. Which of course ignores the sacrifices of Abraham, Job, Cain and Abel. So, yeah, if someone were to ignore the complete Old Testament they might conclude that Christians learned Patriarchy from the Romans. Although that would still be a far-fetched claim when you realize that Patriarchy has been found in nearly every civilization since the Tower of Babel. The Romans were using a system that pretty much everyone was using but, yeah, their specifics are better recorded for future generations to study. So I guess Christians who didn’t learn the idea of a Father-led family from the Bible might have learned it from the Romans. But does that mean it has “pagan roots” if it was around centuries before and apparently approved of by God?
I also don’t appreciate how the author tried to make it sound like Paul was coming up with a new, “revolutionary” system for families and authority. God has not changed. Paul was only explaining the way that things were always meant to work, even if the Corinthians hadn’t heard it before.
I guess my question is do you think the need to break with the term “Patriarchy” is because today’s “Biblical Patriarchy,” (the definition and outline on the Wikipedia page seems pretty accurate,) is a sinful system or because it’s a righteous system that is too corrupted by evil men to wish to associate with the term any longer?
Paul was teaching something extremely revolutionary to the times and culture in which he lived. Extremely revolutionary. Now, God has not changed, no. He has always honored, revered, protected, loved, and raised up His daughters just as He has His sons. But both the OT culture as well as the NT one had largely broken with this blueprint at various times and in various ways. Women were treated like property. Women could not be witnesses in court. Women could not own land until God Himself gave them that right in Numbers 27, something that was very revolutionary in that time. In Ephesians 5 where Paul tells husbands to love their wives, sacrifice themselves for them, etc. again – very revolutionary in a time in which, as the article pointed out, ” the absolute rights of fathers” was the way it was. That patriarchy was unBiblical. And it has been around since the fall when part of the curse was that, unfortunately, men would now seek to “rule” over their wives. Does that mean women do not submit to their husbands? Of course not. Does it mean that husbands shouldn’t seek to watch over their homes well, leading their households to the Lord? Of course not! But that’s not the same as patriarchy, where a father’s absolute “rule” and “rights” are what are in play. Patriarchy takes things much further than the Bible does. And interestingly, all the laws in books like Leviticus and Numbers were actually very, very protective and honoring towards women and were all about their care and wellbeing in a time that was very degrading to women, much as it was in the NT culture.
I’m so happy that you believe that God’s views toward women have not changed! I’ve seen so many people who act like the God of the OT was mean and didn’t care about women while the God of the NT suddenly became a supporter of women’s rights. That, unfortunately was kind of how the article “Does Patriarchy have Pagan Roots” was sounding by insisting that Paul was being “revolutionary”. It would have only been revolutionary to pagans. The Jews already had the Old Testament and it’s rules on the treatment of women to show them how to behave. The only thing that would have been new to them was the comparison of Christ and the Church being an example for marriage (although they did have the scriptures that compared God’s relationship to Israel as a marriage).
While I’m not saying I’d want to live under Roman law I don’t understand how the author thought telling Romans or Greeks to love their wives etc. should have revolutionized the legal system they lived under. Does he think that loving a wife necessitates giving her more legal power? Does by his own definition a “rule by fathers” have to mean a system devoid of love?
What with it insisting on equating the practice of patriarchy with paganism and trying to imply that Paul’s writings would “undermine” a patriarchal system, I’m surprised you’d promote an article with such ill-founded claims.
But at least it sounds like you don’t agree with the article that patriarchy “is an ancient pagan concept, not a Christian one.” Only that the “extreme version” is pagan or unBiblical. Correct?
Well, the Jews did already have the Old Testament and its teachings about how women ought to be treated, but unfortunately, they were still notorious even in New Testament times for not treating women well at all. Which is why Jesus even having women be the ones to go and report the news of His resurrection would have been astounding in a culture and time wherein a woman’s witness and testimony meant little to nothing. Jesus and Paul were not revolutionary according to the way God had always viewed and treated women, but were very revolutionary in a time when people were failing to live according to His ways.
Are you against women having more legal power? I would say as fellow human beings, fellow image bearers of God, fellow people equal to men, it would only make sense for them to have the same rights legally that men do. That seems like common sense to me if we are truly going to believe that God made His sons and His daughters equal. Different, certainly, but still equal.
To be completely honest with you, Leila, the patriarchal system with the absolute rights and rule of the husband/father is reminiscent of the curse and the fall, not God’s design. Genesis 3:16 says that as a result of the fall, men would now struggle with the sin of trying to “rule over” their wives. That is a sin and result of the fall – not a Biblical system to follow. Paul was trying to “undermine” a patriarchal system if a patriarchal system is espousing what God viewed as a curse in Genesis 3. Absolutely. “Ruling over” their wives is something men have to fight and instead they are to love and sacrificially serve their wives and families. Interestingly enough, in Ephesians 5 where wives are told to submit, the flip side is not husbands being told to lead. They are being told to love. Sacrificially, not insisting on their own way (see 1 Corinthians 13’s definition of love). Now, granted, if a wife is to submit, then the connotation would be that there is likely something going on for her to submit to! 😉 But we don’t see husbands being specifically told to lead their wives. What they should absolutely not be doing, though, is ruling over them. That is unBiblical and, again, a result of the fall.
I know you’re probably a very busy wife and mama, but if you do get a few moments while going about your daily tasks, I would encourage you to listen to the following 2 podcast episodes that I will link to below. The guest, Rachel Miller, does an excellent job of explaining what exactly patriarchy actually is, its history, and then also explaining why it is not Biblical. She does a better job of explaining everything than I could in a mere comment. If you want to best understand where I am coming from and what I’m trying (but probably failing! lol) to say, I would encourage you to listen to these:
http://theology-gals.blubrry.net/2018/02/26/patriarchy-with-rachel-miller-theology-gals-episode-50/
http://theology-gals.blubrry.net/2018/02/26/patriarchy-part-2-with-rachel-miller-theology-gals-episode-51/
As always, thanks for chatting with me, Leila! I really do appreciate it. Hope you have a good week!
We’ve been busy moving but I FINALLY found time to listen to the podcast about Patriarchy and read more of the various articles you linked to in your post.
My family were not following the people that Rachel Miller listed in her podcast as Patriarchal teachers and I had never even heard of some of them until after I was married. And yet, independently of “the movement,” just from reading the Bible my parents would have and still believe in most of the so called “tenants of Biblical Patriarchy.” I looked them up when we started the discussion because I wondered what people meant by “Biblical Patriarchy.” After reading them together the tenants Joshua and I found unBiblical are…
the end of tenant 2…
tenant 10…
parts of 14…
the first part of 22…
A few of the others we agree with but would have worded differently.
Notice that the references under each tenant are from the Bible, not Aristotle who Rachel Miller credited for inspiring the patriarchal mentality. Instead of condemning teachings that are generally correct I’d rather concentrate on the few that are errant. Which of the so called Tenants do you agree or disagree with?
I’m sure that Rachel Miller is correct that there are Christians ascribing to “Patriarchy” who take a verse from the Bible and then run with it to an extreme that God did not intend and that there are others who make up stuff and claim it’s Biblical. Still I do not agree with many of her other points. Much of it was condemnations of what what Patriarchy “looks like” when practiced in America. We could spend all day complaining about the way Christians try to live out the Bible but I’d rather stick with the basic question of is “rule by fathers” “Biblical”. What Mr. Dugger thinks that looks like is not something I can control but if we know what is Biblical about patriarchy then we can know when we are seeing someone going beyond.
On the one hand Rachel seems to hold with the basic idea of men and women’s roles in family and church that “Biblical Patriarchy” espouses but then turns around and rejects “patriarchy” as an unBiblical system. She also accuses the Greeks and Romans of originating this system which, as I’ve pointed out before is a ludicrous claim. “Rule by Fathers” is a much more ancient idea, practiced world-wide and obviously practiced in the Bible long before the dawn of the Greek civilization. In the comments of Rachel Miller’s article I found these interesting observations by “Faith” a self-identifying feminist…
“I’ve heard Christians trying to defend the Bible against accusations that it is a patriarchal book — without any real success. Feminists have done a good job of exposing just how patriarchal the Bible is… Christians will cling to verses like Galatians 3:28, overlooking the vast bulk of other inegalitarian statements and admonitions that Paul makes about women. God in the Bible clearly approves of patriarchy. God is — according to you — omnipotent. He surely could thus have established an egalitarian civil society in Israel in which male and female equality was laid down firmly. His law, however, treats women effectively as the possessions of men. The attempts of Christians to make the Bible compatible with the culture of today really are laughable. Feminists have shown us that the Bible does not teach complementarianism (let alone egalitarianism), but an unrepentant and unequal patriarchy.”
While I can see that Faith doesn’t understand the benevolence of our God of fully understand His book it is apparent that a casual reader of the Bible would come away with the idea that it showed a patriarchal system of family and society. So, while I too hate to be associated with the tainted label, unlike Rachel Miller I think that instead of denying the Biblical presence of patriarchy, we Christians would be better off meeting the criticisms head-on by explaining that yes, it may look like what most would call a patriarchal system but it’s a special Divinely regulated and limited one. We’d do better to explain the righteous, benevolent, responsibility-bearing type of authority that it actually teaches. Show the stories in the Bible where patriarchy was misused and show the passages where proper form of leading is explained.
To answer some of what you wrote in your last comment, no, I have no problem with women having legal rights and I don’t think God or the apostle Paul did either. I was questioning if Paul is really being “revolutionary” to his Roman lifestyle readers when he wrote “love your wives” and “I suffer not a woman to teach” and “husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Timothy 3:12). Were these verses really going to cause an overhaul of their legal system? Because there’s no reason why those things couldn’t work hand in hand with a benevolent patriarchy.
Rachel Miller and you both seem to share the view that Patriarchy = men “lording it over” women. I don’t see why it has to be. A man’s relationship with his wife is called to be like Messiah’s relationship with the church. Being under the authority of Messiah has been nothing but beneficial to the church. Why would it have to different to a wife under a husband’s authority? Messiah being our authority in everything doesn’t equal tyranny just like parents being able to make rules for their children doesn’t equal abuse. “Patriarchy” does not have to go hand-in-hand with harshness and being over-bearing.
You wrote… “the patriarchal system with the absolute rights and rule of the husband/father is reminiscent of the curse and the fall, not God’s design.” I’m not sure why you put the word “absolute” in there. The “Tenants of Biblical Patriarchy” describes plenty of limitations in tenant 7. The Bible obviously sets boundaries. Roman patriarchs were subject to Roman law and only what powers it gave them, etc. I’m sure there’s wackos out there that think they have absolute power through patriarchy but they must be a minority because I’ve met a lot of strange people and I have yet to encounter an “absolute patriarch.” If we say “we have an elder-ruled church” it doesn’t mean the elders have absolute authority. When God said “and he shall rule over you” I don’t think he meant, “and I won’t be able to stop him.” So yeah, absolute patriarchy would definitely be unBiblical.
If I understand what you are saying you see patriarchy as being a result of the Fall. It’s not clear to me whether Genesis 3:16 is a curse, a command, a prophesy or all 3. Regardless, coming from the mouth of God is it something we are allowed to resist? Is a man also supposed to resist having to sweat to get his bread? If God declares that something will go down a certain way, (in this case husband ruling over wife), why would we fight that? Or are you saying that the ruling over wife ended at some point? Paul seems to be reinstating some sort of Patriarchy later on so I can’t think of a time where a husband’s rule ended.
To claim that any number of atrocities are “natural result” of a teaching that, if it were actually adhered to, should produce a righteous system is unfair. “There is no system that is sinner-proof” was my husband’s comment. So while I don’t want people to fall into the mistake of thinking a certain system is going to make them happy or always produce good results I do question the condemning of a seemingly God-approved set of beliefs regarding family order and social structure just because we are afraid where sinners will run with them. The unBiblical ideologies and teachings being promoted as Biblical when they are not, yes, we should condemn those. But we can’t lump some crazy notion of whoever in with the rest of Biblical Patriarchy and throw out the whole kit and kaboodle. We have to admit that there’s something “Patriarchal” about the Bible otherwise Faith the Feminist will be right in labeling us delusional.
Hey, Leila! Whew, moving is a big job! I hope it’s been going well!
Thanks so much for taking the time to check out the podcasts and other resources I linked to. That makes it so much easier for me to hopefully be better able to explain where I’m coming from, so I appreciate your taking the time. I’m sure that was hard to do as busy as you have been!
Ok, so there are a few things in particular I want to address. One is that I would be careful allowing people such as “Faith the feminist” who clearly aren’t Christ-followers to determine for us the nature of the Bible. I wouldn’t base my belief of whether or not the Bible is patriarchal on what she said, because if she is not a Christ-follower, she does not have the Holy Spirit within her to guide her into correct interpretation and belief. Certainly the Bible does come across as very patriarchal in certain points if you do not also understand the culture at large at the times of both the Old and New Testaments and how God has always been a kind, caring Father towards His daughters just as much as His sons, raising women up at every turn and giving them rights long before any culture ever did (for example, land rights in Numbers 27).
Secondly, there are a few things you said that I am going to copy and paste altogether because my answer will be to all of them at once. You said: “No, I have no problem with women having legal rights and I don’t think God or the apostle Paul did either. I was questioning if Paul is really being “revolutionary” to his Roman lifestyle readers when he wrote “love your wives” and “I suffer not a woman to teach” and “husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well” (1 Timothy 3:12). Were these verses really going to cause an overhaul of their legal system? Because there’s no reason why those things couldn’t work hand in hand with a benevolent patriarchy. ……Rachel Miller and you both seem to share the view that Patriarchy = men “lording it over” women. I don’t see why it has to be…….“the patriarchal system with the absolute rights and rule of the husband/father is reminiscent of the curse and the fall, not God’s design.” I’m not sure why you put the word “absolute” in there. The “Tenants of Biblical Patriarchy” describes plenty of limitations in tenant 7.” Here’s the thing: the reason I put the word “absolute” in there (and, actually, I’m not the first one to do so) is because that accurately represents the nature of the kind of patriarchal culture in which the New Testament was written. Far from being Biblical, it granted the men all of the rights (they had “absolute” rights), while women had none. They disregarded the teachings of the Old Testament regarding property rights for women, they did not grant women rights to divorce from unfaithful husbands even though we see Moses and Jesus both did, they did not grant women the right to witness in court, though we see Jesus depend on the witness of women repeatedly in His ministry, etc. Women had no rights, men had absolute rights. That is not “benevolent patriarchy”. There was no such thing. Men did, in fact, “lord it over” their families in that culture, which is precisely why Paul’s admonition to let the women learn, to have husbands sacrificially love their wives, laying their lives down for them and not insisting on their own way, directly flew in the fact of the patriarchy of the day. His teachings were completely antithetical to it.
You also said, “If I understand what you are saying you see patriarchy as being a result of the Fall. It’s not clear to me whether Genesis 3:16 is a curse, a command, a prophesy or all 3. Regardless, coming from the mouth of God is it something we are allowed to resist? Is a man also supposed to resist having to sweat to get his bread? If God declares that something will go down a certain way, (in this case husband ruling over wife), why would we fight that?” My answer would be this: first of all, context is key and we see in the outlying context of Genesis 3:16 clear proof that this is a part of the curse. Genesis 3:14-19 is God’s punishment to the serpent, to Eve, and then to Adam, and He is saying how life is going to be now as a result of the fall and the resulting curse. Men are going to have the tendency to rule or lord it over their wives. That was not a part of God’s original design. If you read Genesis 1-2, you see no hint of hierarchy anywhere. None. Genesis 1:26-28 shows that both Adam and Eve were given leadership responsibilities when we see them both being called to subdue the earth and exercise dominion. When woman is designed to be a helper in Genesis 2:18, she is being called an “ezer” (Hebrew word for helper) – the same word used to describe the mighty men of valor who fought in the army and also the same word used repeatedly to describe God and how He came to the rescuing aid of His people. Woman was designed to be the strong, competent partner alongside man to come along with him and aid him in the mission they were both given to subdue and exercise dominion. There is no hint anywhere in the first two chapters of Genesis of man ruling woman, but then, following the fall and as part of the curse, suddenly that is something they would deal with. Gone would be the perfect harmony and equality in their relationship and now would be the man’s tendency to rule over the woman. You then ask why would we fight something God has said will happen. To which I would reply: are we not to fight our sin natures? If man’s tendency to rule over woman was a result of sin, are we to sit back on our haunches and say, “Oh well, God said I am going to be given to the practice of ruling over my wife. I guess it doesn’t matter then that I try not to, I’m full of sin and might as will give into my sin nature and allow it to rule my life”. I would sure hope not! Because God says someone is going to struggle with a certain sin doesn’t mean you throw in the towel and submit to that prophecy. No, you seek to fight your sin nature, walking by the Spirit rather than walking by the flesh. You also asked, “Is a man also supposed to resist having to sweat to get his bread?” How many men do you know these days who actually do that anymore? Really it’s only men in certain lines of work, right? Like farmers, for example. And if we want to take it to mean symbolically that work will be hard, well not all careers are even especially hard. A lot of people are in careers they absolutely love and who don’t view their work as toil at all. Owen is just one example of this. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with men seeking to invent modern advances that will make their work easier. Do you? So I’m not completely sure what the point was of that question. I may have just completely missed it. If so, I’m sorry! You can please feel free to elaborate so I can answer properly if I did miss something.
As always, I appreciate your taking the time to interact with me on this. I hope you have a great week!
Thank you for responding! I love your website’s new look.
I won’t be basing my perceptions of the Bible on anything Faith-the-Feminist wrote. I try to base my perceptions of the Bible on the Bible alone. I am corrupt, though and I find myself constantly having to alter my thinking when I realize I’ve been viewing things incorrectly. Sort of “taking every thought captive” I guess. Only recently I found myself assuming a motivation to a person in a Biblical narrative when it said nothing about motivations! I just thought Faith’s observations as an outsider-looking-in to the “is patriarchy Biblical” debate were interesting.
I would love to know which “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” you agree or disagree with. https://homeschoolersanonymous.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-tenets-of-biblical-patriarchy-vision-forum-ministries.pdf
As I wrote previously, my husband and I read them over and agreed with about 22 out of 26. Even though I think the word “Patriarchy” has too many negative connotations for me to want to use it, I do see many ways a “rule by fathers” is Biblical. Are there instances of patriarchy and indications of it in the Bible? Then it’s in there. Fortunately it sounds like you would admit to that. So instead of saying “Patriarchy is unbiblical” and sounding delusional to Faith-the-Feminist don’t you think we’d all be better off being more specific? As in, don’t say “Patriarchy is unBiblical,” say, “the modern idea of patriarchy where they do _____is unbiblical.” Or, if when you wrote in the comment above, “That was not a part of God’s original design,” you meant that patriarchy should be avoided in any form, shape or fashion then say, “the patriarchal system seen in the Bible was never God’s will and therefore the modern practice of it is unbiblical.”
Now you have probably already gathered that I would disagree with that last sentence. I also think there is evidence to support a pre-Fall hierarchy, BUT since I don’t think that matters to the living of our earthly, post-Fall lives I’ll just explain why I think Genesis 3:16 does NOT imply a condemnation of patriarchy.
God’s punishments handed out in Genesis sounds to me like, “these are things you are going to suffer.” Accusing Adam of being the perpetrator of a future sin which causes Eve’s suffering seems like a strange way to read it to me. Eve can easily suffer under his rule without him sinning, (for instance simply because she’d prefer to be in charge herself.) The Expanded Bible says this, “Then God said to the woman, ‘I will ·cause you to have much trouble [or increase your pain] ·when you are pregnant [in childbearing], and when you give birth to children, you will have great pain. You will greatly desire [C the word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband, but he will rule over you.'”
Similarly Adam can sweat for his bread without his wife’s future sins being the cause, maybe just her needs. (Of course our sins could certainly make our spouses’ lot even more unbearable.) So why, in the middle of a bunch of descriptions of felt effects of sin, (crawling on belly, thorns, sweating, sorrow in conception) would God suddenly bring up “your husband is going to do this sin to you?” On the other hand, if God was saying, “your husband will rule over you and you won’t like it,” that would make sense being in there with, “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Having children in sorrow does not necessitate a sin being committed. I’m sure you have noticed there are a lot of tears shed during motherhood for a lot of reasons.
You wrote, “Because God says someone is going to struggle with a certain sin doesn’t mean you throw in the towel and submit to that prophecy.”
Jeremiah 27:6 and 12 remind me of what God is saying to Eve. It seems it would not be out of character for God to order someone to submit to a ruler that they didn’t use to have and don’t want.
1 Cor. 14:34 refers to “the law” when commanding women be “under obedience.” The only place in the OT that says anything that sounds like that is Genesis 3:16 so maybe it was a command after all, not a prophecy.
Besides, it’s not apparent that God would consider the basic rule of a husband over wife a sin, at all, given the implications of what He also says in…
* Genesis 35:18 (God calls the son by the name the father gave him, not the mother.)
* Exodus 21:10 (He gives men the right to take a second wife but wives cannot take a second husband.)
* Exodus 21:22 (Husband decides how his wife will be recompensed.)
* Duet. 21:10-14 (However, a woman can’t send away her husband.)
* Duet. 22:22 (The actual meaning of the Hebrew word here and in other verses for “married” means “ruled over.”)
* Duet. 24:1 (A man can divorce his wife but a wife can’t divorce her husband. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqjnhgic3Fc&t=95s )
* Deut. 25:5-10 (A childless widow can’t marry just anyone. She has to raise up seed for her husband by his brother.)
* Numbers 5:29 (However, a woman can’t put her husband to trial.)
* Numbers 30 (A husband can annul his wife’s vows.)
* Eph. 5:22-24 (Indicates a husbandly authority within the marriage.)
* Colossians 3:18 (Wives are to yield to husbands as would be appropriate for Christians.)
* Titus 2:5 (Young women are to be exhorted to obey their husbands.)
* 1 Peter 3:1 (Wives are to have a submissive behavior to husbands.)
* 1 Peter 3:5 (Past heroines of the faith who yielded to their husbands are to be examples.)
* 1 Peter 3:6 (Women do well by imitating Sarah who obeyed her husband and called him Master.)
For God to describe an authority of husband over wife in Genesis 3:16 seems to be reflected in the rest of the Bible where God over and over again authorizes a Patriarchal society, one that keeps being misused despite God telling his people “stop using your power to oppress.” The “patriarchy” God established, (see verses I listed above) is SUPPOSED to be, under his guidelines, a benevolent one, unlike what Faith the Feminist and even you and Rachel Miller seem to see when you read the Bible. Faith, because she doesn’t know God and his love and you and Rachel I’m guessing because you’re trying to either figure out how it’s NOT God’s will or because it used to be God’s will but is somehow done away with now. If it was never God’s will, then I ask what Faith asked. Why didn’t God set up an egalitarian style system in His Torah given to the Israelites? If it was done away with, when did that happen?
I’m sorry but I still take exception to the idea that the New Testament was written to people accustomed to “absolute patriarchy.” Greek states were varied in legal style and other pagan cultures too, but most had at least some provisions for protection of their women. The Jews had the Torah to keep them from being “absolute patriarchs” as it obviously includes protections for women and limitations on the men. Roman laws and Jewish laws regarding women were very similar. They both used a patriarchal system where the fathers were heads of their families and represented and spoke for their families. Not a horrifying set up at all if you happen to have an honest and benevolent patriarch. I know that I would have been nothing but relieved to learn that my father was going to represent me in court! Roman law was not as egalitarian as our modern government, but they did, (from what I’ve read) let women legally represent themselves (instead of their patriarch) if they had 3 children or more. Vestal Virgins, besides self-representation, had many, many more rights denied to most women. Wives did own their own belongings, (funnily enough called “paraphernalia”) which they could take with them if they divorced. Romans let women divorce their husbands as well as the other way round, (but the children always stayed with the father.) The women couldn’t vote but a lot of men under Roman law were denied that as well. As a whole, Rome and Judaism were astonishingly genial toward women, especially when contrasted with other Patriarchal societies.
So while I wouldn’t ask to be born under Roman law, if I had, my legal “patriarch” would have made life a dream! My husband is fair, loving and a godly man. He wrote this article… http://daringtheology.com/husbands-love-your-wives …so you see he takes his calling as a husband very seriously. Joshua and I basically practice what most would call “patriarchy” although I would use the term “Biblical marriage.” Joshua has proven to me that a “patriarchy” can certainly be benevolent. Of course he is a sinner and we’ve only been married 6 years but it seem like a Christian with God’s help and His word to guide him should be able to be any type of ruler over any type of person and be at least mostly benevolent. Not a hundred percent so because, being a sinner, we should expect him to slip up somewhere! So I have a hard time seeing why “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church” would be revolutionary to a patriarchal legal system. What it could revolutionize would be an individual man’s attitude while carrying out his patriarchal duties. If before, he was making all decisions selfishly, then after learning he is to imitate Christ he would realize he has to make decisions with the well-being of his family in mind. A husband can certainly represent his wife in court while simultaniously practicing all of God’s injunctions to a husband. In otherwords, a “patriarchal” legal system does not always equal “unbiblical.” Our egalitarian legal system lets women abort their babies but we don’t label the democratic legal system as unbiblical. Abortion is a specific problem within a system. (It would be interesting to see a list of what laws in America would have to change if we were going to become a completely Biblical government.) God established a law where women could indeed inherit land, but only if there were no brothers. (Num. 27) So if a legal system chose to only grant land rights to men they would not be acting unbiblically. Now I don’t think God would have a problem with women inheriting land that was outside the Israel inheritance, but still, there’s nothing in the Bible that says they have too, either, so it’s not a requirement for a Biblical government.
We know from experience that something can be be good but have it’s reputation ruined by sinful people. The Crusaders nigh irrevocably ruined the label of “Christianity” to the Jews and severely hurt our witness to them. Most men are sinners and most of them have been patriarchs. Was it the sin or the patriarchy that ruined their families? Was it Christianity that made the Crusades sinful or un-Christian behavior? Do you see what I’m saying? It’s fine if you want to say “these men are doing unbiblical stuff” but it’s not accurate to say “patriarchy, (rule by fathers) is unbiblical.” Too much of the Bible says otherwise. In the list of “patriarchal” verses above I didn’t even include the many that weren’t quotes from God OR the ones that show God’s preference for males in leadership positions beyond matrimony.
I apologize again for making such ridiculously lengthy comments!
Thank you for responding! I love your website’s new look.
I won’t be basing my perceptions of the Bible on anything Faith-the-Feminist wrote. I try to base my perceptions of the Bible on the Bible alone. I am corrupt, though and I find myself constantly having to alter my thinking when I realize I’ve been viewing things incorrectly. Sort of “taking every thought captive” I guess. Only recently I found myself assuming a motivation to a person in a Biblical narrative when it said nothing about their motivations! I just thought Faith’s observations as an outsider-looking-in to the “is patriarchy Biblical” debate were interesting.
I would love to know which “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” you agree or disagree with. https://homeschoolersanonymous.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/the-tenets-of-biblical-patriarchy-vision-forum-ministries.pdf
As I wrote previously, my husband and I read them over and agreed with about 22 out of 26. Even though I think the word “Patriarchy” has too many negative connotations for me to want to use it, I do see many ways a “rule by fathers” is Biblical. Are there instances of patriarchy and indications of it in the Bible? Then it’s in there. Fortunately it sounds like you would admit to that. So instead of saying “Patriarchy is unbiblical” and sounding delusional to Faith-the-Feminist don’t you think we’d all be better off being more specific? As in, don’t say “Patriarchy is unBiblical,” say, “the modern idea of patriarchy where they do _____is unbiblical.” Or, if when you wrote in the comment above, “That was not a part of God’s original design,” you meant that patriarchy should be avoided in any form, shape or fashion then say, “the patriarchal system seen in the Bible was never God’s will and therefore the modern practice of it is unbiblical.”
Now you have probably already gathered that I would disagree with that last sentence. I also think there is evidence to support a pre-Fall hierarchy, BUT since I don’t think that matters to the living of our earthly, post-Fall lives I’ll just explain why I think Genesis 3:16 does NOT imply a condemnation of patriarchy.
God’s punishments handed out in Genesis sounds to me like, “these are things you are going to suffer.” Accusing Adam of being the perpetrator of a future sin which causes Eve’s suffering seems like a strange way to read it to me. Eve can easily suffer under his rule without him sinning, (for instance simply because she’d prefer to be in charge herself.) The Expanded Bible says this, “Then God said to the woman, ‘I will ·cause you to have much trouble [or increase your pain] ·when you are pregnant [in childbearing], and when you give birth to children, you will have great pain. You will greatly desire [C the word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband, but he will rule over you.'”
Similarly Adam can sweat for his bread without his wife’s future sins being the cause, maybe just her needs. (Of course our sins could certainly make our spouses’ lot even more unbearable.) So why, in the middle of a bunch of descriptions of felt effects of sin, (crawling on belly, thorns, sweating, sorrow in conception) would God suddenly bring up “your husband is going to do this sin to you?” On the other hand, if God was saying, “your husband will rule over you and you won’t like it,” that would make sense being in there with, “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Having children in sorrow does not necessitate a sin being committed. I’m sure you have noticed there are a lot of tears shed during motherhood for a lot of reasons.
You wrote, “Because God says someone is going to struggle with a certain sin doesn’t mean you throw in the towel and submit to that prophecy.”
Jeremiah 27:6 and 12 remind me of what God is saying to Eve. It seems it would not be out of character for God to order someone to submit to a ruler that they didn’t use to have and don’t want.
1 Cor. 14:34 refers to “the law” when commanding women be “under obedience.” The only place in the OT that says anything that sounds like that is Genesis 3:16 so maybe it was a command after all, not a prophecy.
Besides, it’s not apparent that God would consider the basic rule of a husband over wife a sin, at all, given the implications of what He also says in…
* Genesis 35:18 (God calls the son by the name the father gave him, not the mother.)
* Exodus 21:10 (He gives men the right to take a second wife but wives cannot take a second husband.)
* Exodus 21:22 (Husband decides how his wife will be recompensed.)
* Duet. 21:10-14 (However, a woman can’t send away her husband.)
* Duet. 22:22 (The actual meaning of the Hebrew word here and in other verses for “married” means “ruled over.”)
* Duet. 24:1 (A man can divorce his wife but a wife can’t divorce her husband. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqjnhgic3Fc&t=95s )
* Deut. 25:5-10 (A childless widow can’t marry just anyone. She has to raise up seed for her husband by his brother.)
* Numbers 5:29 (However, a woman can’t put her husband to trial.)
* Numbers 30 (A husband can annul his wife’s vows.)
* Eph. 5:22-24 (Indicates a husbandly authority within the marriage.)
* Colossians 3:18 (Wives are to yield to husbands as would be appropriate for Christians.)
* Titus 2:5 (Young women are to be exhorted to obey their husbands.)
* 1 Peter 3:1 (Wives are to have a submissive behavior to husbands.)
* 1 Peter 3:5 (Past heroines of the faith who yielded to their husbands are to be examples.)
* 1 Peter 3:6 (Women do well by imitating Sarah who obeyed her husband and called him Master.)
For God to describe an authority of husband over wife in Genesis 3:16 seems to be reflected in the rest of the Bible where God over and over again authorizes a Patriarchal society, one that keeps being misused despite God telling his people “stop using your power to oppress.” The “patriarchy” God established, (see verses I listed above) is SUPPOSED to be, under his guidelines, a benevolent one, unlike what Faith the Feminist and even you and Rachel Miller seem to see when you read the Bible. Faith, because she doesn’t know God and his love and you and Rachel I’m guessing because you’re trying to either figure out how it’s NOT God’s will or because it used to be God’s will but is somehow done away with now. If it was never God’s will, then I ask what Faith asked. Why didn’t God set up an egalitarian style system in His Torah given to the Israelites? If it was done away with, when did that happen?
I’m sorry but I still take exception to the idea that the New Testament was written to people accustomed to “absolute patriarchy.” Greek states were varied in legal style and other pagan cultures too, but most had at least some provisions for protection of their women. The Jews had the Torah to keep them from being “absolute patriarchs” as it obviously includes protections for women and limitations on the men. Roman laws and Jewish laws regarding women were very similar. They both used a patriarchal system where the fathers were heads of their families and represented and spoke for their families. Not a horrifying set up at all if you happen to have an honest and benevolent patriarch. I know that I would have been nothing but relieved to learn that my father was going to represent me in court! Roman law was not as egalitarian as our modern government, but they did, (from what I’ve read) let women legally represent themselves (instead of their patriarch) if they had 3 children or more. Vestal Virgins, besides self-representation, had many, many more rights denied to most women. Wives did own their own belongings, (funnily enough called “paraphernalia”) which they could take with them if they divorced. Romans let women divorce their husbands as well as the other way round, (but the children always stayed with the father.) The women couldn’t vote but a lot of men under Roman law were denied that as well. As a whole, Rome and Judaism were astonishingly genial toward women, especially when contrasted with other Patriarchal societies.
So while I wouldn’t ask to be born under Roman law, if I had, my legal “patriarch” would have made life a dream! My husband is fair, loving and a godly man. He wrote this article… http://daringtheology.com/husbands-love-your-wives …so you see he takes his calling as a husband very seriously. Joshua and I basically practice what most would call “patriarchy” although I would use the term “Biblical marriage.” Joshua has proven to me that a “patriarchy” can certainly be benevolent. Of course he is a sinner and we’ve only been married 6 years but it seem like a Christian with God’s help and His word to guide him should be able to be any type of ruler over any type of person and be at least mostly benevolent. Not a hundred percent so because, being a sinner, we should expect him to slip up somewhere! So I have a hard time seeing why “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church” would be revolutionary to a patriarchal legal system. What it could revolutionize would be an individual man’s attitude while carrying out his patriarchal duties. If before, he was making all decisions selfishly, then after learning he is to imitate Christ he would realize he has to make decisions with the well-being of his family in mind. A husband can certainly represent his wife in court while simultaneously practicing all of God’s injunctions to a husband. In other words, a “patriarchal” legal system does not always equal “unbiblical.” Our egalitarian legal system lets women abort their babies but we don’t label the democratic legal system as unbiblical. Abortion is a specific problem within a system. (It would be interesting to see a list of what laws in America would have to change if we were going to become a completely Biblical government.) God established a law where women could indeed inherit land, but only if there were no brothers. (Num. 27) So if a legal system chose to only grant land rights to men they would not be acting unbiblically. Now I don’t think God would have a problem with women inheriting land that was outside the Israel inheritance, but still, there’s nothing in the Bible that says they have too, either, so it’s not a requirement for a Biblical government.
We know from experience that something can be be good but have it’s reputation ruined by sinful people. The Crusaders nigh irrevocably ruined the label of “Christianity” to the Jews and severely hurt our witness to them. Most men are sinners and most of them have been patriarchs. Was it the sin or the patriarchy that ruined their families? Was it Christianity that made the Crusades sinful or un-Christian behavior? Do you see what I’m saying? It’s fine if you want to say “these men are doing unbiblical stuff” but it’s not accurate to say “patriarchy, (rule by fathers) is unbiblical.” Too much of the Bible says otherwise. In the list of “patriarchal” verses above I didn’t even include the many that weren’t quotes from God OR the ones that show God’s preference for males in leadership positions beyond matrimony.
I apologize again for leaving you such lengthy comments!
Thank you! I’m so glad you like it; that’s really encouraging! My friend Kayla re-designed it and made it waaaay more organized and pretty than I ever could have! She is the graphic design guru; I definitely am not! 😉
No need to apologize for long comments! 🙂
There are a couple things I would say. First of all, you said that you see a precedence for “pre-Fall hierarchy, BUT since I don’t think that matters to the living of our earthly, post-Fall lives I’ll just explain why I think Genesis 3:16 does NOT imply a condemnation of patriarchy.”
That’s where we would have to disagree. For reasons I’ve already outlined in other blog posts, I don’t see any hint of pre-fall hierarchy in either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2. In fact, Genesis 1:26-28 sets forth a picture of both man and woman being equally created in the image of God and both tasked with the responsibilities to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and take dominion. That’s leadership language applied to both and leadership responsibility given to both. In Genesis 2, we see woman described as being an “ezer” for man, a helper. That Hebrew word is elsewhere used to refer to the mighty men of valor who fought in Israel’s army and also to refer to God as being the shield, protector, and helper of His people. No hierarchy of man over woman there, either.
You then said, “God’s punishments handed out in Genesis sounds to me like, “these are things you are going to suffer.” Accusing Adam of being the perpetrator of a future sin which causes Eve’s suffering seems like a strange way to read it to me. Eve can easily suffer under his rule without him sinning, (for instance simply because she’d prefer to be in charge herself.) The Expanded Bible says this, “Then God said to the woman, ‘I will ·cause you to have much trouble [or increase your pain] ·when you are pregnant [in childbearing], and when you give birth to children, you will have great pain. You will greatly desire [C the word implies a desire to control; 4:7] your husband, but he will rule over you.’”
To me, “these are things you are going to suffer” implies what He is about to say is a bad thing. If so, then man ruling over woman is a bad thing, not a good one. Also, that explanation of the first part of Genesis 3:16 in regards to woman is not necessary accurate. I find this article helpful in that area: http://theologicalmisc.net/2016/10/contrary-women-genesis-316b-now-non-permanent-esv/
You then said: “1 Cor. 14:34 refers to “the law” when commanding women be “under obedience.” The only place in the OT that says anything that sounds like that is Genesis 3:16 so maybe it was a command after all, not a prophecy.” I love that you pointed out that there is no place in the OT law that said this. Many people on the patriarchal side of things don’t seem to realize that. They also don’t like to point to Genesis 3:16 to support their patriarchal beliefs, though, because they know this is part of the curse and therefore likely should not be taken to be used as an excuse for men ruling women. Then there kind of stuck. Another reasonable explanation for “the law” is that quite frankly he was referring to the law of the land at that time which definitely would have said such a thing, for it was a patriarchal culture. He was operating within the system in which they were, in a time when the smallest little mis-step, so to speak, would have rendered the Christians fit for execution. Further, Genesis 3:16 cannot be referred to as “the law”, because the law was not set forth until the book of Exodus.
A few of the passages you referred to were:
* Eph. 5:22-24 (Indicates a husbandly authority within the marriage.) – I wouldn’t say it does. It does clearly indicate that a woman is to submit to her husband, but we also see submissiveness to others to be a Christian quality in general – see Eph. 5:21, for example. Furthermore, the husband is not even told to lead in this passage, let alone exert “authority” – he is told to love and love does not seek its own way according to 1 Corinthians 13
* Colossians 3:18 (Wives are to yield to husbands as would be appropriate for Christians.)
* 1 Peter 3:1 (Wives are to have a submissive behavior to husbands.) Again, submissive behavior is absolutely appropriate; it’s also appropriate for all Christians in general, with each of us seeing to place others and their needs ahead of our own, considering them as being more important than we are.
* 1 Peter 3:6 (Women do well by imitating Sarah who obeyed her husband and called him Master.) Interestingly, the term “lord” or “master” in that day did not denote one being “in charge”; rather it was a common greeting and label of the day, a greeting that denoted respect, not power:
https://blogs.bible.org/engage/sandra_glahn/why_peter_would_not_want_a_wife_today_to_call_her_husband_lord
While we do see many laws in the OT which seem very patriarchal, it’s likely that God was showing His children how to live within a patriarchal culture, not so much that He Himself was setting forth patriarchy. We see this same concept in the teachings throughout the Old and New Testaments about how masters ought to treat their slaves, and yet we wouldn’t (I hope, anyway!) say that slavery is an ok and acceptable practice or appropriate way to treat another human being. But, slavery was a part of that culture and so people like Paul were working with what they had and at least telling Christians to treat any slaves they may have had kindly and with respect. Just because there is a teaching does not mean it is for all place and times; we know that certain teachings are merely cultural (like Paul encouraging us to greet one another with a holy kiss, for example! 😉 ).
I’m now back to being the one setting forth a lengthy comment! haha At least we both do it, right? 🙂 As always, thank you for allowing me to share my heart and for being willing to discuss thing with me. Have a good night, Leila!
You write several new blog posts in the time it takes me to respond to one comment! You are an amazing and industrious mommy!
That article you gave me a link to, “would Peter would want women today to call their husbands ‘Lord'” was thought-provoking, but not very relevant. I think what we are actually more concerned with here is what the “obey” part of the 1 Peter 3:6 passage means. The author’s scholarship had some problems too, which you can read in my husband’s comment on her website if you want but, like I said, it probably doesn’t matter to this topic. Peter’s point was more about obedience. He probably would tell women today to call their husbands whatever they ask to be called! https://blogs.bible.org/engage/sandra_glahn/why_peter_would_not_want_a_wife_today_to_call_her_husband_lord
That article doing a word study on Genesis 3:16 was very interesting. It seems the implications of “thy desire” is unclear but there’s no confusion over what “rule over you” means. Whatever “desire” means on Eve’s part it doesn’t matter to the question we are discussing which is, does God grant rule to Adam by the last part of the verse. If Genesis 3:16 means “you are going to having loving longings for your husband and… he will rule over you” or “You are going to have a wicked wish to control your husband and… he will rule over you” either reading doesn’t change the end part which says, “despite your feelings, Eve, Adam will rule over you.” Do you see what I’m saying? Arguing about what was meant by Eve’s “desire” is kind of like arguing over the existence of a Pre-Fall hierarchy. Going with either interpretation won’t prove or disprove the allowance or “Biblicalness” of post-Fall “patriarchy.”
You wrote, “To me, “these are things you are going to suffer” implies what He is about to say is a bad thing. If so, then man ruling over woman is a bad thing, not a good one.”…
Verse 15 sounds like some unpleasant or “bad things” too but I think we all understand that through this ordeal God accomplishes a good thing. God also says we are to have pain in childbirth but that doesn’t mean we should never have children. Why can’t we read “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” the same way? Something that should have been beautiful is going to feel bad.
You also wrote…”Another reasonable explanation for “the law” is that quite frankly he was referring to the law of the land at that time which definitely would have said such a thing, for it was a patriarchal culture.”… That interpretation would put an interesting spin on things! If Paul is appealing to the Greek extreme patriarchal system to support his inspired writings then I guess we have to conclude that God would be ok with at least some Greek laws, in specific, one on wifely obedience. If you are right and it’s not referring to God’s law then apostle Paul is saying that a Greek law for wives to obey husbands is a good law to follow. Really?!! I have a hard time believing Paul would be so keen on pagan law and it would be strange for him to suddenly reference it in this verse considering the over 100 times he mentions “law” and meant the OT. If you are correct that God doesn’t like “patriarchy” and the apostles proved that they weren’t afraid to disobey earthly rulers, why would Paul promote a pagan law unless it were a good one? There are plenty of other pagan practices he condemns. When I told my husband your interpretation he was inspired to write about the verse on his blog. You wrote… “Further, Genesis 3:16 cannot be referred to as “the law”, because the law was not set forth until the book of Exodus.” Joshua covers that on his blog post in his answer to “1. Objection.” You can read the post here. http://daringtheology.com/also-saith-law or you can just believe me when I tell you that any claim that Paul WASN’T talking about God’s law doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
When I wrote… “Eph. 5:22-24 (Indicates a husbandly authority within the marriage.)”… you answered… “I wouldn’t say it does. It does clearly indicate that a woman is to submit to her husband, but we also see submissiveness to others to be a Christian quality in general – see Eph. 5:21, for example. Furthermore, the husband is not even told to lead in this passage, let alone exert “authority” – he is told to love and love does not seek its own way according to 1 Corinthians 13.”…
I don’t understand the way you perceive submission if you don’t see the giving of it as implying authority to the recipient of the submission. The Bible says “submitting yourselves one to another” the actual Greek word for “submit” means like “under appointment” or “put under” and was a military term. So I would understand it to mean even more than just “be ye kind one to another” and be referring to accountability between the brethren, our duty to rebuke when necessary and even church discipline! 1 Peter 5:5 and Hebrew 13:17 especially seems to be talking about believers and church leadership. If a believer can be held accountable by other believers or need to obey a church leader, why wouldn’t the same word “submit” be being used in a similar way when it comes to a wife and husband? The very idea of being “put under” implies there being an authority in the situation. Fellow church members have been given “authority” to rebuke me. Responsibility and authority go hand-in-hand in the scripture. A church leader can’t lead someone who refuses to be lead. In addition a believer should NOT follow or obey someone who has no God-given authority. So if we are to “obey those who have rule over us” and a husband has not only been said in Genesis that he WILL rule but Paul says we should put ourselves “under” and even “obey” our husband, how does he not have authority? God wouldn’t tell us to obey or submit to someone who wasn’t an authority.
Christians are called to submit to each other but wives are reminded several times to be submissive to husbands, (not just to everyone) and what is written elsewhere in the Bible where they are commanded to “obey” and even “fear” their husbands, the amount of deference due to a husband and the right of the husband to lead his wife seems to me like it has to be that of some type of authority. The Bible says a Christ-like authority which would be an absolute but totally loving and self-sacrificial one. My fellow believers in the church don’t represent Christ in that way, they represent members of a body. So of course I have to work with them and take care of them like a fellow member but I can’t show them all the same level of submission.
* I’m not called to “obey” and “reverence/fear” them.
* I’m not told to submit to all the men in the church “in every thing,” (Eph. 5:24) that would be impossible to do.
*I’m not told to submit to all the members of the church “as unto the Lord.” Just my husband.
So the modifying words connected to “submit” when found in the Bible add some clarity to the level due the recipient of the submission. A man is also supposed to love the other members of the church but he is called to love and cherish his wife to a greater level than the rest of the Church body. But how can he take care of her “as his own body” if she won’t let him? How can he lead her without her willing submission since he represents Christ and can’t force his will on her? That’s why there are so many verses telling wives to let him lead. It won’t work otherwise.
Also, if you are supposed to yield your submission to someone, why does the recipient need to be told that they get to give instruction or lead? It would happen automatically. If I tell my children, “follow your big sister” then the big sister does not have to be told, “lead your brothers.” It will happen because the boys are already following, (if they listened to me.)
Do you see what I’m saying? The NT doesn’t have a verse that says specifically, “husbands, you must exert authority over your wives” because it doesn’t need it.
1. Because the readers already thought they were their wives authorities and and only needed to be told HOW to exercise it.
2. The wives are called to place themselves under authority so all that needs to happen is for them to do so and the authority structure automatically falls into place.
3. Men are not allowed to forcefully take authority over their wives. They are to be like Christ and lovingly lay down their lives for their wives and, hopefully, the wives would respond like the Church and accept the authority of their Christ-like head.
Men are no different, today than they were then. Most don’t have a problem taking charge. They do struggle with doing so properly, thus, lots of NT verses telling them how. Ephesians 5:21-33 paints a pretty clear picture for me. Husbands are to represent Christ, (including his authority) which the wives, (representing the Church) submit to of their own free will, just like we do when we accept our Savior and choose to follow him.
The “Patriarchal” verses in the NT are mostly found in those relating to church leadership. It makes sense. There were probably a lot of questioning and debate between the familiar-with-female-priestess crowd and the only-Levite-priest-and-male-synagogue crowd. Interestingly, even though this would have been the perfect opportunity to establish a gender-equal church God, through the apostles still sets up what would be still be called “patriarchal” system. Much like he did in the OT legal system.
You wrote… “it’s likely that God was showing His children how to live within a patriarchal culture, not so much that He Himself was setting forth patriarchy. We see this same concept in the teachings throughout the Old and New Testaments about how masters ought to treat their slaves, and yet we wouldn’t (I hope, anyway!) say that slavery is an ok and acceptable practice.” I’m glad that you brought up slavery because it is indeed very comparable to the “patriarchy” set-up.
If God set up rules for the treatment of another human being then we know that, since He is just and loving that those rules must be the same, right? We also know that His version of “slavery” and “patriarchy” were neither one like those found in Egypt where the Israelites had been living for the past 800 years. Egyptians had some kind of weird, semi-egalitarian civil system from what we know and we can can see from the scriptures where they differed on slavery from God’s law. So I don’t know what culture you think God would be trying to make his children fit into. They were starting fresh and He had no problem telling them what ways they were NOT going to be acting like the Egyptians they had just left OR the inhabitants of Canaan where they were heading.
Christians are horrifyingly quick to shake their heads sadly and dismiss what the OT instructs as “an unfortunate constraint of the culture/Fall” without even stopping to wonder if “The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations” (Psalm 33:11) might mean that He actually intended the instruction as an eternal, just and beneficial thing.
If we applied Biblical Slavery, (6 year limitation, not released empty-handed, etc.) in our country, not the horrifying Egyptian version that we used to practice, I think the benefits would be obvious! People locked in generational poverty and the prison system and a lot of other problems would be gone! Just like “Patriarchy” if we followed God’s regulations regarding slavery it would be an excellent system and one that is also interestingly not condemned in the NT. Really, how hard would it be for the apostles to tell masters to free their slaves? Apparently, like patriarchy it was purposefully not condemned, just straightened out. Why? Because “patriarchy” and “slavery”, the Biblical versions, are neither of them wrong in God’s eyes. They only are in ours because we’re obsessed with the sinful imitations.
Most often women need protection from men.
I don’t want to be property.
It’s sad but true that in this fallen world unregenerate men do NOT treasure and value women. So, like you wrote, “most women need protection from men.” God’s system in the Bible took into account men’s fallen state. He knew that when men think of something as THEIRS (you see this terminology all over the Bible “my wife”) they take care of it. It’s a big improvement over a system that tends toward men treating women as free objects to discard when they are done with them.
Of course the ideal is for a man to care for his wife, not just as a valuable possession but as Christ loves the Church! But he can only do that with Christ’s help.
” it would be hard for me to see how a woman could be a drill sergeant … over men without violating their sense of manhood and her sense of womanhood.”
In much the same way as elders could submit to a young one trying to lead them: The whole, entire TWO books of Timothy.
If it’s NOT. INHERENTLY. A sin to try to lead my elders, and >even literally take authority over them< for the singular reason of being much younger than most leaders…then _probably_ same for gender?
Just like: Sure, the Bible doesn't _explicitly_ say that opium is inherently wrong; BUT the passages on wine, other specific liquors, and liquor in general (or at _least some_; _maybe all_ of them)… are, actually, a veiled representation to all other addictions, abuses, and so on; too.
Don't forget: An older pastor is ___still___ younger than ___some___ of the congregation members. So, it's __still__ reversing _some_ "Biblical age-related rules" in that way.
In most churches; there _could_ be exceptions to the above 2 sentences. But there's more where my 2 sentences are true; than false.