Thursday, September 25, 2008

Biblical Patriarchy from Creation?

Now that I’m done defending Deborah the big question is whether the Bible teaches anything like “Biblical Patriarchy” at all. I’ll come right out and say that I don’t believe such a teaching can be found anywhere in scripture, at least in the form in which it is presented by Vision Forum. As with my last post, I will mostly be citing verses and arguments as posed by William Einwechter in his article “Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate?” found on Vision Forum’s website.

The Biblical Patriarchist begins his case by going all the way back to the beginning of the Bible. The creation of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis 2 is the Old Testament backbone of the doctrine. In this chapter’s account Adam is created first and spends some length of time with the animals in the garden before God observes that, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him," at which point God places Adam into a deep sleep and removes the rib from which He fashions Eve.

In writing about this story, Mr. Einwechter says,
“The text of Genesis 2:7 and 2:18-24 teaches us that man was made first, and then the woman was made to be man’s helper and companion. The Bible instructs us that this order of creation was by God’s design, and that it establishes the positional authority of the man over the woman in regards to authority and leadership.”

Einwechter and others of this point of view make much of two elements of this chapter: 1) that Adam was created first, and 2) that the text reports that God said, “…I will make a helper suitable for him.” They say that the creation of Adam chronologically prior to the creation of Eve illustrates a natural order of positional authority of the man over the woman. Furthermore, God’s statement in Genesis 2:18 that Eve was created for Adam reinforces this illustration from the natural order of creation. It seems to me that one needs to come to the text of Genesis 2 with this presupposition already in place to get this message from the story.

If we consider the whole creation text of Genesis I think that we find an authority message dramatically different than that in Biblical Patriarchy. There are only two passages which relate the creation of Adam and Eve themselves: Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7, 18-22. In Chapter 1 of Genesis God states His intention for mankind to exercise dominion over all creation:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. – Genesis 1:26-27

Einwechter ignores this passage, however, I think it’s interesting to note that here, the first time human authority is presented in the Bible, both the man and the woman share equally in it. The word ‘man’ that appears in this passage is the Hebrew word ‘adam’ (transliterated), which is a generic word for mankind. God states His intention that man, or mankind, should rule over all creation. To make it perfectly clear that God includes all people in this sweeping declaration of authority and not just males the passage ends with the description, “God created man [mankind] in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.” While it may not contain an explicit teaching on male and female authority, I would say that, if anything, it communicates the equality of the man and the woman, not the authority of the man over the woman.

According to Einwechter, the fact that Adam was created first is indicative of an implicit patriarchy, that it “establishes the positional authority of the man over the woman in regards to authority and leadership.” I beg to differ. The wording chosen by the author of Genesis himself in describing God’s sentiments on Adam’s lonely state in Genesis 2:18 communicates exactly the opposite. God asserts that,
“It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

Mr. Einwechter places the emphasis of this passage on the “for him,” there is a sense of ownership laid over the statement. However, God’s expressed purpose for creating a helper for Adam was so that he wouldn’t be lonely; that he should have someone else with him to share in his work.

Additionally, many Bibles include a footnote next to the word ‘suitable’ which reads “Lit. Corresponding to.” All the Jewish scholarship that I could find agree that the literal rendering of the text using the words ‘corresponding to’ instead of ‘suitable for,’ communicates God’s intention to create a helper for Adam who is completely his equal (see here for example). Eve was not merely Adam’s assistant in the garden, she complimented him and was his companion, and shared equally in the authority God gave all mankind over His creation.

While I do believe that the Bible teaches that male headship in families and in the Church is desirable and normal, Einwechter’s claims that the creation order in Genesis establishes a universal positional authority of man over the woman reads too much into the passage. The words of God Himself communicate the equality of His male and female creations.

7 comments:

Unknown said...

Once again, great comments! I think these folks have a certain mindset which they then find justification for in Scripture. (It is a common failing and one that we all need to be aware of in ourselves.) Thanks for doing the hardwork on this.
mom

Anonymous said...

Very excellent! You are so great at taking on these sorts of opinions and countering them with truth!Thanks, Nathan!

Nathan Alterton said...

I don't want anyone to misunderstand, I do agree with Paul that male headship of the family in the home is desirable, and I realize that Paul argues for this value in part by refering to creation. What I disagree with about Einwechter's position on the creation story, is that he uses it to argue that women in general must be submissive to men in general. This goes well beyond the argument that Paul made, which was only refering to a relationship between a husband and a wife.

BTW, thanks for the comments.

Nathan Alterton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I totally agree with you on that.

Anonymous said...

The Bible both by precept, doctrine, AND EXAMPLE is clear: women are NOT to usurp authority or leadership over men. The exception (Deborah) does NOT negate the rule. Deborah "judged" Israel DURING A TIME OF declension and when the men were NOT walking rightly in obedience to GOD. Even so, the men [not the women] went into battle against the enemies of Israel, and Deborah acted as a prophetess and a guidance from GOD, ... Why? because (apparently) there were no men hearing from GOD or acting in right authority or leadership. - Thus: GOD shamed them by raising up a woman who led them in these circumstances, which was to their shame, NOT to their honor or to their credit. In fact, as the story clearly indicates, THE MEN WERE FURTHER SHAMED by the fact that A WOMAN was given the honor of slaying the ruler of their enemies. - THIS? is a "rule" to overrule everything else the Bible says about men being REQUIRED to be in loving and responsible leadership? hardly.

Nathan Alterton said...

Hi, Anonymous, thanks for dropping by and commenting. I appreciate your thoughts and positions. If you see an error in my thinking or my exegesis, or you know of something that I didn't address, I would love to hear it and am open to having my mind changed.

I agree that women are not to usurp men's authority; the question is what particular positions does the Bible designate as uniquely masculine? In these blogs I did not speak about family structure or church leadership, where I do think the Bible makes a clear distinction in roles. What I was addressing specifically was the appropriateness of women holding civil leadership positions.

On to my disagreements:

1) You said that the Bible is clear by "precept, doctrine and example." I beg to differ, that was the whole point of my series of blogs on this topic; that the Bible doesn't actually say any such thing, at least regarding civil leadership. I exegeted numerous passages frequently quoted by Christians who take your position and demonstrated why these verses don't actually say what it is claimed they say.

2) You say that "Deborah judged Israel during a time of declension and when the men were NOT walking rightly in obedience to GOD." I would love to know on what information you base this statement, as no such sentiment appears anywhere in the story of Deborah.

Usually, this claim is supported by a single passage: Isaiah 3:1-12, which says of Israel under judgment that "youths oppress my people and women rule over them," implying, it is claimed, that female leadership is necessarily evidence of judgment from God. In short, I don't believe that this is the case. Perhaps I'll write another blog explaining why this is.

3) Most of your other comments seem to me to fall into same problem as in 2). You assume that female leadership is shameful and thus read it into the story of Deborah, despite the fact that it does not appear anywhere in the actual text. If you read my blog fully, you know that I took a great deal of time addressing all of these claims of shame, and demonstrating that none of them hold water.

4) Nowhere did I claim that this singular example should overturn everything else the Bible says about male authority. As I said above, I was only addressing civil leadership, and (if you saw my other posts on the subject) I think I did a careful job in looking at the most common arguments for male-only leadership in these roles and demonstrating that the Bible doesn’t take such a position.

5) I do think that in the home and the church men should be in loving and responsible leadership positions, when it's possible (as it is the vast majority of the time). However, I can think of some instances where female leadership in these institutions might be necessary and not a sign of God's judgment on that specific institution.

As I said above, if you have further thoughts on any of the specific points addressed in my articles, I welcome that discussion.