Christian Patriarchy

Welcome to Have You Not Read, a podcast seeking to answer questions from the text of Scripture for the honor of Christ and the edification of the Saints. Before we dig into our topic, we humbly ask you to rate, review, and share the podcast.

Thank you. I'm Dylan Hamilton and with me are Michael Durham, Chris Giesler, and Andrew Hudson. We had a question sent in to us about Christian patriarchy and we would like to address it on this episode.

Christian Patriarchy and the Biblical Order of Creation

The question reads, is Christian patriarchy biblical? How do we account for women leadership in Scripture, especially women spoken of as deacons? Michael? Well, I would hope that Christian patriarchy would be biblical, otherwise it wouldn't be Christian.

It could say that is, you know, where did patriarchy come from? You know, I would think it would come from the Bible, given the descriptions that we have, from Genesis throughout. So the idea of patriarchy, I would say, it would be a little redundant to say biblical patriarchy, but I understand the concept.

There are sinful models of male-centeredness that we would certainly disagree with, and so in that sense I understand the point of putting some qualifiers there, but the original idea of patriarchy, of male leadership, a male-centered household, family, male leadership in every form of society, that would be the biblical model.

We certainly don't have a matriarchal family presented in the Scriptures. We don't have matriarchal society praised in the Scriptures. We don't have a matriarchal church praised in the Scriptures, and to press it further, we don't have an egalitarian model for family, society, or the Church.

Every reading of the Scripture, whether we're in the Old Testament, considering the design of creation, or the exposition of the created order in the Covenants, or the interpretation of the Covenants in light of Christ, looking at the body of the Church, and so forth in the New Covenant, we're not finding matriarchy, we're not finding egalitarianism, we're not finding the male-centered, male leadership in the various forms of society.

This is not to say that to have the form is to have everything right. This is to say that if we don't align ourselves with the form, we're not going to get right. So that's going to be the deductive claim from the very beginning, and then why do we say that?

Why am I saying that? Well, to put the matter at its most broadest level, we should consider the interplay of Genesis and 1st Timothy, because Paul looks back at the order of creation. So when we go back and read in Genesis chapter 2, we of course read it in unity with Genesis chapter 1, in which it very much affirms that God created mankind in his own image, which includes both male and female.

So it is not that the male is in the image of God and the female is not in the image of God, but both are. So we read that in chapter 1 verse 26, then God said, let us make man in our image according to our likeness, let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

So God created man in his own image, and the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. So humanity is best described as mankind, or man, Adam, and male and female, the two parts of humanity, of mankind.

We have Adam and Eve, we have male and female. And God blessed them. And God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over everything that moves on the earth.

So there is a nature, a design for mankind made in God's image. So we were made to reflect the glory of God, to bring glory to God. This breaks down into some clear parameters of loving God supremely, loving each other rightly, and stewarding the creation faithfully.

We have a job to do, we are to be fruitful in the creation. Okay, how can the male do that without the female? How can the female do that without the male? God designed the fruitfulness to be a togetherness, and so when God created Adam and Eve, he immediately brought them together in marriage.

And so we see that in chapter 2, that God, chapter 2 verse 7, and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. And verse 8, the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed.

So he puts the man in the garden. But then in verse 18, he says it is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper comparable to him, a standout standalong. So what does he do? He parades all the animals in front of Adam and says, look, two by two, two by two, look, male, female, male, female, so that Adam would understand there was no partner amongst all of creation that was specially meet for him.

And so, having made his point, then God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, verse 21, and he slept. And he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its place, so that the first Adam, from the blood of the first Adam, the first Eve was formed.

This is already, God is etching into the granite of history the shadows and types of that which was to come. And so, then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and he brought her to the man, and Adam said, this is now bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.

Even in this description, Eve being formed second, or the woman being formed second, there is a very clear primacy of the man and a secondary nature of the woman. This is not to say she is less than in the image of God, that she has less glory, less worth, and so forth, but there is a hierarchy, there is a priority.

Therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, they shall become one of flesh. Notice the man is active, it's not the woman. Therefore, a woman shall leave her father and mother and be joined to her husband.

It doesn't read that way, does it? Just fundamentally, these types of scriptures have a male centeredness, and you know they have a male centeredness, because they are so massively irritating to egalitarian readers and feminist readers.

Paul’s Teaching on Women, Authority, and Creation

So, why is this pertinent for any kind of thought and discussion regarding leadership or authority of women in the church or in society today? Well, because of the way that Paul brings it up in 1st Timothy 2.

So, Dylan, would you read that for us? Yep, starting in verse 8. I desire, therefore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women, professing godliness with good works.

Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, fell into transgression.

Nevertheless, she will be saved and childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, holiness, and with self-control. So, let's break down this passage that it's often tried, you know, it's uncomfortable for a lot of modern ears that have been cultivated in now generations of feminism, masking as egalitarianism, and so on.

What we have here is a list of instructions from Paul. Men and women ought to pray. You see that in verses 8 and 9. In like manner also, the women are to pray, the men should pray, the women should pray.

Okay? He has some additional instructions for the women, and he's going to have some additional instructions for men in the church. He's talking to women in the church here, he's going to talk to men in the church coming up soon, in chapter 3.

So, in verse 9, it says, in like manner also, the women adorn themselves in modest apparel with propriety and moderation. And he gives some examples of that. Braided hair, gold, pearls, cloths, and clothing.

What's the point of those things? You know, what's the point of those items and those styles? A beautiful adornment. Exteriorly. Yeah. So, it's grabbing attention. Mm-hmm.

Or grabbing attention. Wouldn't it also be the practice of the cult prostitutes to do.

Such things as well? Dress themselves in that manner? Well, I think it's quite possible, and depending on what kind of cult prostitute you are. So, the braided hair, gold, pearls, cloths, and clothing, what's the point of it?

These are not in correlation with moderation, modest apparel, and propriety. So, these are the examples. Okay. Paul's not saying purposely make yourself ugly. He's saying your attention, your intent, it should not be, hey, look at me.

Hey, look at me. Hey, look at me. All right? But which is proper for women professing godliness with good work. So, adorn yourselves in a way that is proper for women professing godliness. And what would that be?

Good works. So, what is he saying there in verse 10? There are all manner of ways in which women show their value before the face of God, but it's not going to be in seeking attention. Why might that be important for our discussion?

Seeking attention. Seeking the limelight. Saying, hey, look at me. Okay. So, he says now, good works. Is he saying that unless you're getting a lot of attention, unless you're in the limelight, you have no value to society, no value in the family, no value to the church, no value to God.

No, he says that there's an adornment with good works. He says, let a woman learn in silence with all submission. Okay. So, what does this mean? Well, given the polity of the church and the way the church is organized in a way that families are conducted, he's not saying, do not let a woman learn.

That's not what he says. Okay. If we go back and we look at the patterns of church worship in 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, and so forth, any man standing up to preach and teach the word of God is subject to all the others who would hold him accountable for what he's saying, but he's not accountable to their wives.

Their wives say, I don't know about that. That doesn't make sense to me, or I might have a challenge to that. She's to do what? She's to talk to her husband. Okay. That's what Paul's after here in kind of shorthand compared to how much detail he gives in other places.

So, he says, let a woman learn in silence with all submission. Who should she be supposed to be submitting to? Well, whoever her proper authority is, given the parameters in the word of God. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.

Notice that those aren't that same thing, but they're related, but they're not the same thing. So, when he says, I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence, this verse progressively, and that's a pun, gets changed in its meaning.

Okay. First change is that when he says to teach or to have authority, that these mean the same thing. Meaning, what Paul's after is he's, I do not permit a woman to teach, to have authority by teaching particularly over a man.

It's fine to have all manner of authority and so on. And the silence is about the teaching. Okay. And then it eventually progresses to, well, this was Paul. Right. I do not. But notice his reasoning, verse 13, for Adam was formed first than Eve.

So, verse 13 is saying, look at the model that we did in Genesis 1 and 2. And then, of course, we have Genesis 3 that details the temptation of the servant. He tempts Eve and notice that Paul says, Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.

So, I think one of the reasons why perhaps there is a large scale moving away from patriarchy is that there's also been a large scale moving away from believing Genesis 1 through 3. Sure. I mean, there's just, why?

Well, this is all, this is myth. These are all metaphors. It's not exactly how it happened. This is just story time to kind of get at some larger truths, but this is not history. Well, I mean, it's definitely helpful not to believe those things about Genesis 1 through 3 for this specific purpose, right?

Like if your purpose is to subvert what Paul says or what Christ says, it's easy to go back and deny those things because they rooted a lot of their arguments in Genesis. So, notice that speaking of Adam and Eve, Eve's on the table, Eve's in the view.

Verse 15, nevertheless, she, who's she? Eve, okay? Eve as the prototype woman. What is a woman? Ask Eve, right? What is a man? Ask Adam, right? Does that make sense? Yeah. Well, what is a man? Well, God made Adam.

What is a woman? God made Eve. I think that's a fairly simple deduction. Verse 15, nevertheless, she, Eve, prototype woman, will be saved in what? Childbearing, that they continue in faith, love, holiness, and with self-control.

Now, word saved. About half the time, Paul used the word saved. He uses it in the sins forgiven, gift of the Holy Spirit, going to heaven when you die, that idea of saved. The other half of the time, some of that could be what he means, but a lot of those times, he's just saying delivered from a problem.

A deliverer, a savior. Get out of a pickle, okay? If there's a problem and you were delivered from that problem or danger or oppression or whatever it is. So, okay, so Eve was deceived and she fell into transgression.

What happened to Eve when she did that? I mean, just what happened to prototype woman? What happened to prototype man when he sinned? There's a stigma, for sure. Stigma, there's all sorts of problems, right?

Adam is not what he used to be, shall we say. Man has all kinds of problems. Now, they bring her forth of thorns. Yeah. And same with women. So, women aren't what they used to be compared to Eve. All manner of problems in a woman's life.

What hope does a woman have under the threat of absolute destruction? Is it to continue in sin? Is it to become more and more sinful? Is it to proceed and believe every lie fed to her? No, look, she will be saved.

She will be delivered in childbearing if they could. What did Adam call his wife? Eve. Why? Because she was the mother of all the living. Not something Adam's going to be able to do. She's the nurturer.

She's the life bearer, the life giving kind of person. The Lord is the one who gives life, but she bears that life, and then she gives birth to that life, and she nurtures that life, and without her, where will we be?

Okay? So, I'll ask you all this. Given the trajectories of sin, what happens to the idea of womanhood or the idea or the ideal of woman? What happens to it when sin gets a hold? It gets marred. It gets marred.

It gets destroyed. It's the destruction of life bearing. I see it nowadays, and it's probably been this way any other time, but it's more bent toward usurping the man's glory, what a man is for. Yeah.

The things that she can't do, but she's going to say that she can do them. Women often feel under threat. I don't know if you've noticed that or not. They have a kind of, their radar for threat, danger, and oh me, oh my is a little bit higher than guys in general.

Okay. All right. So, you feel under threat from what? Big bad men. Okay. What's the solution for women's salvation, for women's protection, women's continuance, that women will be held precious and protected?

How are they saved? How is that idea of womanhood preserved and saved? She will be saved in pursuing a CEO position. She will be saved if she is as strong as men, right? She will be saved if she makes as much money as men do across the board.

Now, what does it say? What is her purpose? Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and so do it. Adam can't do that by himself. Have big bad babies for a big bad man to combat all the other big bad men.

All right. So, there is a good, God glorifying, praiseworthy, honorable, wonderful design that God made for women. I'm glad you're bringing this up in this direction because it's going, I know this isn't the topic of discussion and it's more about the women leadership, but I see a lot of fudging in the other direction as well, where it's the description of manliness from men in the church broadly is something that women can do as well.

So, anytime they bring up what's a godly man, there's no difference between what a godly man can do and what a godly woman can do. Godliness, sure, but as far as being a man, there are different glories that a man takes on and habits and pursues than glories that women do.

And a couple of those are like law enforcement and military service, those sorts of things. And people lose their mind when those sorts of things are brought up. And like I said, that's back in the other direction, descriptions of men and manliness.

But I think it's the same play, wouldn't you say? Yes. So, the egalitarian move, which is just feminism wearing different skirts, is that men and women can all do the same things, except for women can have babies.

So, they can do that too. So, women can be the chief of police, just as good as a man can, mayor just as good as a man can, president of the United States just as good as a man can, and also be the mother, the nurturer, and have all of...

But a man is restricted to only doing the things that a woman can do, except he can't actually give birth. Well, some people think that men can give birth, but I was trying to stick with the mid-level lunatic level.

In Arkham Asylum, when you walk through, the deeper you go, the more zanier the villain. So, we weren't going a bit to the back cells on that particular thing. We're just talking about egalitarian ideas that men and women are fungible, and like Dylan was saying.

Male Responsibility and Accountability in the Household

It's interesting thinking about what Adam failed to do and what men are supposed to do, either stand in the place of or take responsibility for things underneath them. I was reading in Numbers, and it's talking about fathers, and it's talking about husbands, and then it mentions the women.

In Numbers 30, he says,. If a man makes a vow to the Lord or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.

He gets to verse 3, or if a woman makes a vow to the Lord and binds herself by some agreement while in her father's house in her youth, her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she was bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then her vows will stand, and every agreement which she has bound herself shall stand.

But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows or her agreements in which she has bound herself shall stand, and the Lord will release her because her father overruled her.

And then you go down to verse 10, and it's the same thing for a husband. And it makes me think of Adam and Eve. God commanded Adam, do not eat of the tree. He's like, okay, I won't do that. And then Eve.

Does it. Right. And Eve was made after After the command was given. Yeah. So, Adam obviously has the role of giving the instructions of Informing her, teaching her, guiding her,.

This is off limits. And when she did it, he held his peace. Instead of saying, no, no, no, I'll take the responsibility, release her from that. It's my responsibility. He was with her. Right. Because she gave him.

The apple. Or the fruit. And the distinguishment is that she was deceived. We don't have anything saying that Adam was deceived. Adam sinned. Well, she sinned first. Who was held responsible? Adam was held responsible.

Yeah. Through one man's son. Right. Exactly. So, in this, even his name... All right. So, God created man, male and female. So, the name is central. In chapter 1 of Genesis, chapter 2 of Genesis, the man is created first.

In chapter 3 of Genesis, he is held responsible, primarily responsible for what occurred. Right. So, just out of the gate. So, this is a creational thing. And so, in the question that Dylan read for us, how do we understand, okay, is Christian patriarchy biblical?

Women in Leadership: Exceptions, Judgment, and Biblical Categories

Okay. And then, how do we square the idea of Christian patriarchy when, in the Scriptures, we read about women being in leadership? Okay. And so, this is an important question for this particular reason.

Okay. Because that is biblical. So, if we read in Scripture of what I would term as exceptions to the rule, okay, do the exceptions erase the rule, or do they prove the rule? And that's a common discussion question, I imagine, on many different message boards.

Dating myself there. Social media. Yeah, there we go. Yeah. So, how do we understand that? So, where do we find women in leadership in Scripture? And then... The ones they always go to are Deborah or Phoebe.

Right. And I think even with that... Well, there's Athaliah and Jezebel. They were also in leadership. You know, Jezebel's the one I prefer out of all of them. Not generally on the list that you want to bring up, right?

But they were in leadership. They sure were. And Athaliah was in leadership far more. And Jezebel kind of ran... She wore the pants, you know? But she wasn't officially, officially the one in charge. Athaliah, she reigned without any contention.

Nobody else said, somebody else is in charge. She ran the roost until they killed her for her wickedness. There's plenty of wicked kings as well as queens in the Scriptures. All right. Just because you're a queen doesn't mean that you're automatically wicked.

The point I'm trying to make is, when looking for women in leadership in Scripture, usually it's... Well, there's Deborah, and then there's... Maybe Phoebe. Phoebe, and then Yodia and Syntyche. And let's...

But... Purcell and Aquila? Yeah. Her name was listed first there in that one time. So, obviously the leader. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously, she probably had Aquila on a leash or something. So, this is where there's a strange use of, especially the way Reform guys argue that I've noticed, that this can be a useful tactic on the egalitarian or feminism side because they're citing verses, right?

They're citing actual people. They're citing verses. And Paul just makes an argument from nature to prove his point, right? And obviously, it is Scripture that we're using. But it's like kind of using your own methodology against you is what they're almost trying to do when arguing with you about these cases.

And I think they all fall apart on their.

Own just from the text. Well, and they don't define terms. Again, leadership, what do you mean by that? I think some of the recent discussion with the Southern Baptist Convention, it's like, well, we can't preach from the pulpit.

And then that becomes the big thing. And so, when they do use cases, it's like, well, we don't have any examples of that. So, what do you mean by leadership when you're saying women in leadership in the church?

Often, there's not a definition given. So, again, the question is framed in that way. Is it biblically consistent? That's what makes the discussion worthwhile is because of the convictions that we hold that the Scriptures are not full of contradictions.

There are no contradictions. The Bible is not going to fold back on itself. So, what we read in a kind of positive sense in Genesis 1 and 2, in a kind of negative sense in Genesis 3, reaffirmed in 1 Timothy chapter 2.

Of course, we didn't have time to necessarily read 1 Corinthians chapter 7, chapter 11, chapter 14. All of that is to be explored. But we're not going to find inconsistency between that and then even what, Chris, you read from Mosaic Law.

So, the covenants are expositing the creation. What does it really mean that this is a patriarchy, male-centered, male-led in the family? Well, it means that if she makes a vow and her father doesn't concur, then it's not binding.

If she makes a vow and her husband doesn't concur, it's not binding. And so, this is an exposition of... And that's a protection. Yes, protection. Reality is on the ground. Now, to put this further, we're not saying that the Bible has no examples of women being out in front in some area.

But how are we to understand that? In some areas, we read something about a woman doing this or that, and then we're told, because she was mentioned, she's a leader, obviously. Well, we don't treat every mention of a man in Scripture as if, hey, his name is mentioned.

Obviously, he's a leader. But we do that with women because everyone's looking for... Feminist hermeneutics. Yeah, feminist hermeneutics. What does the Bible say, broad strokes, about having women as leaders in society at some level?

What does the Bible have to say about that? Bad or judgment or... Right. So, Isaiah chapter 3, in a list of massive woes, and God, through his prophet Isaiah, saying, here's how bad everything has gotten for you.

Okay. So, he is going through Isaiah chapter 3, and nobody wants to lead. Okay. So, example, chapter 3, verse 5, the people will be oppressed, everyone by another and everyone by his neighbor. The child will be insolent toward the elder and the base toward the honorable.

Verse 6, when a man takes hold of his brother in the house of his father saying, you have clothing, you be our ruler, and let these ruins be under your power. We're just looking for leadership anywhere, right?

Well, in that day, he will protest, verse 7, saying, I cannot cure your ills, for in my house there is neither food nor clothing. Do not make me a ruler of the people. Here's how bad everything is, Israel, Isaiah is saying, is that this is how bad things are getting for you, O nation of Judah, that there's going to come a time when there's not enough food for anybody to survive, and you're going to be looking for leadership, and you're going to grab this guy and try to grab that guy, like, hey, you have a full set of clothes, wow, you look important, you're obviously elevated from us because you're wearing a whole tunic, so you lead us, and the guy's like, don't, no, I am not going to be your leader, okay?

Verse 8, where Jerusalem stumbled and Judah is fallen because their tongue and their doings are against the Lord to provoke the eyes of his glory. Oh, here's why everything is so bad, because you transgressed the covenant, you're against the Lord.

Verse 9, they look on their countenance, witnesses against them, and they declare their sin as Sodom. Here's how bad it is, it's like Sodom, okay? And then he goes through the rest of verse 9 and verse 11 saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, and then verse 12, here's how bad it is, folks, as for my people, children are their oppressors and women rule over them, oh my people.

Those who lead you cause you to err and destroy the way of your paths. This is one example, it's not the only example, this is one example of a recognition of sometimes, it's hard to find someone to lead.

Why? Is it the judgment of God upon his covenant people? Is it that men, when they're said, hey, you're the best among us, why don't you lead? And the guy's like, not on your life, I'm gonna go my own way.

I ain't gonna carry nobody, no responsibility for me, thank you. At a certain point, things get so bad, the Bible says, that women have to rule over you, right? That's a general statement, okay? Now, this doesn't say women never lead, it's saying that something has gone wrong.

Okay, so now how does that pertain to the story of Deborah? Something went wrong. They asked her to lead, right? Yeah, Barak wouldn't, he wouldn't go do it, he wouldn't go lead. So, remember, these are the days of the judges.

What was the tagline of the days of the judges? Every man did, in those days, there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes. How about that? And it was in this day and age that Deborah was a prophetess and a judge sitting under a tree, judging the tribes of Israel.

And Barak wouldn't go to war unless she was there, and she said, fine, but your victory is going to go to a woman. And jail put the tent peg through the head of their great enemy, put the tent peg through his head and killed him.

And so, she won the praise and honor. And well done, by the way, when a horrible villain comes to your home and you have no immediate way of defending yourself, put him to sleep. Notice that she did so by hospitality, very nurturing thing to do.

Yeah, here's some goat's milk.

She didn't meet him in open battle in the field?

Nope, nope. She took him out the way a woman ought to take out an enemy. Yeah, make you feel all sorts of comfortable, and once you're asleep, I'm going to take you out. Well done. Protect your tent, protect your household.

Great. But no, she wasn't donning the armor and charging down the hill. So, that story, like you said, as an example, we're not seeing there a fungibility between men and women, and we're not seeing a praise.

This isn't a good thing.

That this happened. But even to Dylan's point about taking the man's role or the honor or glory there, she says, the honor will not be yours, for the Lord will deliver sister into the hands of a woman.

And she's saying that as a judgment.

Elders, Deacons, and Male Responsibility in the Church

Yeah. All right. So, one classic example handled. And now, what we see there in Judges does not contradict what we see in Genesis 1, 2, and 3, does not contradict what we see in Isaiah, does not contradict the male-led family, the patriarchy that we see described in the Old Covenant.

And it doesn't go against what we read in 1 Timothy 2. There's no contradiction there. We read 1 Timothy 3, right after dealing with women, and how it is that they will be saved, how is it that the idea of womanhood is preserved and kept, and this is something good for women to do.

He then talks about things that men might do in 1 Timothy 3, talking about the position of a bishop and the position of a deacon. And in both of those, once again, it is all the assumptions of patriarchy are there.

And some of them are not just assumptions, they're actually stated, right? This is a faithful saying, if a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. Okay. And then the description, and it really depends on him ruling his own house well.

Okay. Including, it's his wife and his children, the same thing with the deacons. The deacon, the guy can't be a deacon if his wife is irreverent, a slanderer, intemperate, and unfaithful, right? Verse 11, likewise, their wives must be reverent, meaning that if your wife isn't this way, you don't get to be deacon, sorry.

Why is he being held responsible? See, there's the assumption of patriarchy right there. He is responsible. Well, shouldn't he be? Oh, what was that example? Jesus and the church, the man and his wife, what is Jesus doing?