The Beauty of Biblical Patriachy - Part 2
Notes from my recent interview.
When יהוה revealed Himself to us, He do so in masculine terms (Genesis 1:27; Deuteronomy 32:6; Luke 11:2; 1 Corinthians 8:6, etc).[1] It was a man, Moses, that received the commanded instructions of יהוה (Exod. 19–24). Men were appointed to the priesthood (Deuteronomy 21:5, 33:10; 2 Chronicles 17:7-9, 35:3; Nehemiah 8:7-9; Malachi 2:4-7) and in the Tabernacle/Temple (Num. 3:3, 10). The Messiah, Yeshua, was born a man and addressed God the Father (John 10:30). The twelve apostles of Messiah Yeshua were all men (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16; Acts 1:13). Men are called to be elders (Numbers 11:16; Deuteronomy 31:28; 1 Kings 8:1; 2 Chronicles 5:2; 1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Pet. 5:1–4) and men are called to be deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13).[2] Scripture attests that the father is the spiritual head of the family (Eph. 5:21–27; 6:4; Colossians 3:18).[3] Husbands are to have authority over their wives and wash them in the Word (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23-26; 1 Peter 3:7) and teach their children (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalm 78:1-5; Proverbs 1:8, 3:1, 23:6; Ephesians 6:1-4). While predominately liberal scholars have argued against biblical patriarchy, this is problematic as such a term should not be defined according to secular thinking or the sins of individuals associated with the concept.[4] When speaking of patriarchy, the only definitions there should be are that of biblical and secular patriarchy, the latter being the progenitor of sins associated with the terms and the corruptor of the former. Block rightly notes the centrality of the male in the biblical record. He writes,
Biblical genealogies trace descent through the male line; a married couple resided within the household of the groom; in reference to a man and his wife or a man and his children, the man is generally named first (Gen 7:7); children were born to the father (Gen 21:1–7); fathers negotiated family disputes (Gen 13:1–13; 31:1–55); God generally addressed heads of the household; when families worshipped, the head of the household took the initiative; and when men died without descendants their “name” died. In short, the community was built around the father, in every respect it bore his stamp.[5]
In his important work on the topic, Garris contends for the restoration of biblical patriarchy:
God has revealed Himself in masculine terms, and throughout the Scriptures God reveals that men are to rule – in the home, church, and society. Thus, the word “complementarian” does not go far enough. While it is true that that men and women complement each other, even egalitarians can affirm this in some sense (e.g. sexual complimentary). We must speak more forcefully than this, and thus, we need a word that communicates male rule better. Enter patriarchy. It has the world “rule” in it (archo), which tells us something about male authority. But it is also gentle, as it includes the word “father.” This speaks of more than just a man. This rule is by a father, a man who has children that he is to care and provide for.[6]
Biblical patriarchy, is not the theological bogeyman that mainstream Christianity contends. The aberration that calls itself patriarchy in some Christian circles, is often a syncretism of vaguely chosen passages married with a form of oral legalism influenced by secularism. This is to say, that often what is declared as patriarchal, is more from the will of man than that of יהוה. Biblical patriarchy glorifies יהוה, is exegetically consistent with His Word and the observances of all its commandments, maintains the importance of the wife to the husband and mother to her children, never competes with the ecclesial authority of the local congregation nor contemplates substituting it with the family, and extends to all aspects of society (e.g. civil government, military, etc). It magnifies the nature of men and women, rather than roles. As such, biblical patriarchy strengthens the weakness of complementarianism[7] and eclipses egalitarianism.[8] It strengthens the intended purpose of those made in the image of יהוה according to the natural order He intended for each of them.
Importantly, biblical patriarchy “rightly conceived, is not about the subjugation of women as much as it is about the subjugation of the male aggression and male irresponsibility that runs wild when women are forced to be in charge because the men are nowhere to be found… [so the] choice is not between patriarchy and enlightened democracy, but between patriarchy and anarchy.”[9] Hence, “[t]he belief that biblical headship or biblical patriarchy is sin is simply not biblically true… [t]his position is an inaccurate reading of the Bible… [b]iblical patriarchy is a blessing, not a crime, and women who support biblical inerrancy and the fulfillment of biblical gender roles willingly and joyfully support and build up biblical patriarchy.”[10] Pronomianism contends that the absence of laws has contributed to this. It not only acknowledges the God-given role and responsibility that redeemed men have been given in their homes and local church[11] (while also supporting the female-led ministries e.g., Titus 2:3–5), but that it is men who have been uniquely entrusted with teaching the laws in the Torah and practicing its truths before their family and community. Women are not to teach or lead (1 Tim. 2:12; cf. Isa. 3:12) but are to emulate their husband’s teaching or that of the elders of their church (if unmarried). This is further strengthened by the reality that many of the laws in the Torah are gender-specific for men (e.g., Lev. 15:13–14; 19:27) and women (e.g., Lev. 15:19, 28–29), supporting biblical patriarchy and even commanding that the boundaries between the two genders are never to be crossed (e.g., Deut. 22:5).
[1] Pronouns referring to Him are grammatically masculine in both the Hebrew and Greek. References to motherly qualities do not infer a feminine nature (e.g. Hosea 11:3–4; Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 42:14, 49:15, 66:13). The exclusivity of masculine terms like Father and King, rather than Mother and Queen, attest that יהוה who is Spirit (John 4:24), insists on being addressed in male terms and this is further emphasised in the creation of two distinct genders in which each are distinguished by their roles in His created order.
[2] Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1995); Alexander Strauch, Minister of Mercy: The New Testament Deacon (Littleton, CO: Lewis & Roth, 1992), 112–31. See also: Zachary Garris, Masculine Christianity (Ann Arbor, MI: Reformation Zion Publishing, 2021), 90-95, 167-194. The wives of deacons are permitted to assist their husband, but not the wives of elders.
[3] “If you are a father, you carry the mantle of patriarchy. You rule your home. To make this a pretext for abuse is vile. Your rule is to be a sweet echo of the eternal love of God made known in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son. It is to be lived in daily prayer for the Spirit of God to pour more of the love of God into your heart in order that you might cheerfully exercise sacrificial leadership and care. Biblical fatherhood is strong, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in mercy and forgiveness, and holy.” Peter Van Doodewaard, “In Defense of Patriarchy” Reformation 21 (2024): https://www.reformation21.org/blog/in-defense-of-patriarchy.
[4] Block prefers to the term “patricentrism” which is entirely reasonable to adopt, though it should not be done to avoid the negative association with the word “patriarchy.” If patriarchy is defined by Block’s parameters, then the word should remain. Daniel Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” ed. Ken M. Cambell, Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 41–44.
[5] Block, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel,” 42.
[6] Zachary Garris, Masculine Christianity, 78-79.
[7] John Piper and Wayne Grudem, 50 Crucial Questions: An Overview of Central Concerns about Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016); John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). “This is why complementarians forcefully eschew the term patriarchy, despite ostensibly reverencing the rule of God the Father. They are ashamed of the Bible’s general teaching on gender duties, but comfortable with the tradition of male-only pastors—and they know the Scriptures cannot be made to say anything else on that matter. They are sufficiently committed to the Bible to feel good about fighting for a basic minimum standard of complementarity—but sufficiently compromised by the androgyny of our culture to feel good about fighting against a thorough, biblical reform of gendered piety. This is why complementarians are typically comfortable with—indeed, often enthusiastic about—women presidents, firemen, policemen, and even soldiers; and when they’re not, they are dazed and perplexed as they try to explain why. They have excised telos.” Michael Foster and Bnonn Tennant, “The Compromise in Complementarianism,” Discipleship and Dominion, 26 November 2019. This thinking is expanded in their It's Good to Be a Man: A Handbook for Godly Masculinity (Moscow, ID: Canon Press).
[8] A common argument is that Deborah contradicts complementarianism and upholds egalitarianism. A pronomian response can be found here: Jeff Young, “Deborah the Judge Doesn’t Justify Egalitarianism,” Pronomian.com (2022), https://pronomian.com/deborah-the-judge-doesnt-justify-egalitarianism/.
[9] Kevin DeYoung, “Death to the Patriarchy? Complementarity and the Scandal of ‘Father Rule,’” Desiring God (2022), https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/death-to-the-patriarchy.
[10] Rosaria Butterfield, Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2023), 177. Butterfield’s complements towards biblical patriarchy rather than complementarianism, is refreshing.
[11] Baucham Jr. prefers the term “gospel patriarchy.” Interestingly, while Bauchman does not contend that all the laws are to be practiced, he makes the connection between the role of the father with the teaching of God’s Law and that the father is called to “uphold… the principles of God’s Law.” Voddie Baucham Jr., What He Must Be… if he wants to marry my daughter (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 59–60. By extension, in the Calvinistic view that like the Messiah, fathers are to emulate the roles of prophet, priest, and king in their households, the “priestly” function would demand the practice of the laws.