Patriarchy - contrasting the societal and biblical ideas

[Bombila]

Moocar, somewhere, and I've been searching unsuccessfully for it, I have read a list of verses from the Bible which portray feminine aspects of the Old Testament god. They include God speaking of (it)self as having a womb, as giving milk, as having a female bosom, and other hints of a female aspect, but these are never, in my experience, spoken of in any church. I think it would be very interesting to discuss those verses, if I or someone else can find them. As you indicate you are a Christian, (although I am not, I have no interest in deconverting people) you might find in that list, in spite of Paul, that there may be a way for you to relate better as a woman to the god you believe in.
I've seen many apologies for Paul's writings, but he is the greatest offender, IMO, regarding how Christianity came to treat women.

 

[gengwall]

Moocar, somewhere, and I've been searching unsuccessfully for it, I have read a list of verses from the Bible which portray feminine aspects of the Old Testament god. They include God speaking of (it)self as having a womb, as giving milk, as having a female bosom, and other hints of a female aspect, but these are never, in my experience, spoken of in any church. I think it would be very interesting to discuss those verses, if I or someone else can find them. As you indicate you are a Christian, (although I am not, I have no interest in deconverting people) you might find in that list, in spite of Paul, that there may be a way for you to relate better as a woman to the god you believe in.
I've seen many apologies for Paul's writings, but he is the greatest offender, IMO, regarding how Christianity came to treat women.

In my opinion and review of Pauls writings, I do not believe he is an offender at all. The offense has been the parsing of his words and taking them out of context. People forget that Paul was typically writing to specific circumstances and issues. They fail to take those things into concideration and incorrectly turn Paul's words into universal commands. The other, and even more egregious error, is that they ignore all the times Paul extolls the virtues of women in general and specific female leaders in the early church. Finally, on the other side of the coin, women fail to recognize how hard Paul was on men. It isn't as if Paul spent all his time bashing women. He had plenty to say about the error on the male side of the fence. His admonitions for men to love thier wives are especially stinging, because it is really a revelation to us at how bad we are at that. Believe me, when I read Paul, I do not revel in what he is saying to women thinking to myself, "see, I knew I was the King". I have no time for it because I am too busy wincing at his scolding, and rightly so, of my callous, unloving, unhonoring, uncherishing and completely pride run attitude.

We must remember, as Christians, that the entirety of the bible is God's instruction for us. Paul wouldn't be there if God did not want him there. Paul's words have a purpose. But one can not make a universal case by looking at one verse of Paul any more than they can by looking at one verse of any bible writer. We must reconcile those verses with what the rest of scripture tells us, especially when those verses seemingly contradict other words from the very same writer.

 

[Bombila]

Finally, I look at Jesus (and I contrast him to Adam). Jesus is not an authoritarian figure. His headship parameters are those I have mentioned - intercession, accountability, service. None of these have anything to do with making decisions or performing certain tasks within the family. So, if He is the model of leader, and wives must submit to that model, and there is no hierarchy regarding family "operation", it must mean that it is these characteristics that the woman is submitting to. They do not diminish her equality in the human race and in the marriage at all.

I have agreed, Gengwall, that you have established the ideas of equality within the family, and in the world. Perhaps I am slow to understand, but I am still balking at the implications of intercession - why is the male to be considered the intercessor? It's not as if women aren't permitted to or not expected to pray or worship, which implies (though not strongly) God at least has given women souls, but the message still is that God hears men above women, God is perceived as more likely to listen to men.

This is obviously a difficult apologetic, gengwall: I appreciate your patience, and won't try it further - this time. ;-)

 

[gengwall]

I have agreed, Gengwall, that you have established the ideas of equality within the family, and in the world. Perhaps I am slow to understand, but I am still balking at the implications of intercession - why is the male to be considered the intercessor? It's not as if women aren't permitted to or not expected to pray or worship, which implies (though not strongly) God at least has given women souls, but the message still is that God hears men above women, God is perceived as more likely to listen to men.

This is obviously a difficult apologetic, gengwall: I appreciate your patience, and won't try it further - this time. ;-)

It is a difference between right and duty. Indeed, because of our abdication of our duty, very often in our culture the wife is the sole intercessor in the family. How sad a reality is that. Just because it is the wife's right to engage in those activities, and even though she may actually be the more gifted at it in any particular marriage, does not remove it as the husband's duty.

 

[MooCar93]

...all the times Paul extolls the virtues of women in general

Could you give me an example of this? I don't remember Paul ever singling women out and talking about how great we are. Sure, he drops some female names here and there, but that's not really the same thing.

He had plenty to say about the error on the male side of the fence. His admonitions for men to love thier wives are especially stinging, because it is really a revelation to us at how bad we are at that.

That's about it, though... and I never read that as more than a criticism of male error than the command to submit was a criticism of female error.

We must reconcile those verses with what the rest of scripture tells us, especially when those verses seemingly contradict other words from the very same writer.

And that's part of the problem. There are many verses that portray women in a favorable light. There are also, however, probably just as many, if not more, that portray women negatively (let's not forget the OT here).

It just seems to me that, even though the Bible probably promoted a better standard of living than women living 2000 years ago were used to, it also comes up short in a lot of areas by today's more humane standards.

 

[gengwall]

Could you give me an example of this? I don't remember Paul ever singling women out and talking about how great we are. Sure, he drops some female names here and there, but that's not really the same thing.



That's about it, though... and I never read that as more than a criticism of male error than the command to submit was a criticism of female error.



And that's part of the problem. There are many verses that portray women in a favorable light. There are also, however, probably just as many, if not more, that portray women negatively (let's not forget the OT here).

It just seems to me that, even though the Bible probably promoted a better standard of living than women living 2000 years ago were used to, it also comes up short in a lot of areas by today's more humane standards.

This is taken from an article which you may find interesting regarding Paul's teaching including his treatment of women:

Then there is the clue of Paul's own behavior toward women. Paul greets several women by their own names at the conclusion of Romans (ch. 16), whereas the rabbis spoke of a woman only as the wife of a certain man. Unlike a rabbi, Paul addressed a group of women with no men present (Acts 16:13), and he accepted Lydia's invitation to be a guest in her house (Acts 16:15). He regarded both Priscilla (Rom. 16:3) and Timothy (Rom. 16:21) as "my fellow worker." Since both are known as teachers of the Word (Acts 18:26; Phil. 2:20), it is natural to understand that Priscilla labored with Paul in the teaching ministry of the Word.

In Paul personal dealings with women, he was amazingly Christ like, as should be expected.

 

[MooCar93]

Then there is the clue of Paul's own behavior toward women. Paul greets several women by their own names at the conclusion of Romans (ch. 16), whereas the rabbis spoke of a woman only as the wife of a certain man. Unlike a rabbi, Paul addressed a group of women with no men present (Acts 16:13), and he accepted Lydia's invitation to be a guest in her house (Acts 16:15). He regarded both Priscilla (Rom. 16:3) and Timothy (Rom. 16:21) as "my fellow worker." Since both are known as teachers of the Word (Acts 18:26; Phil. 2:20), it is natural to understand that Priscilla labored with Paul in the teaching ministry of the Word.

I suppose. That still seems more like just the mentioning of names I referred to above and less like the praising of women's virtues you alluded to earlier. Not that I expect Paul to go off about how wonderful women are... I just wanted to see if I had been missing something.

It's strange, though... there seems to be a disconnect between the way Paul treated women in day to day life and the way he talked about them in the epistles. I mean, if Priscilla were a "teacher of the Word," as you say, why does Paul expressly forbid a woman to teach a man in 1 Timothy? Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent to you?

 

[gengwall]

I suppose. That still seems more like just the mentioning of names I referred to above and less like the praising of women's virtues you alluded to earlier. Not that I expect Paul to go off about how wonderful women are... I just wanted to see if I had been missing something.

It's strange, though... there seems to be a disconnect between the way Paul treated women in day to day life and the way he talked about them in the epistles. I mean, if Priscilla were a "teacher of the Word," as you say, why does Paul expressly forbid a woman to teach a man in 1 Timothy? Doesn't that seem a bit inconsistent to you?

As I said before, one always needs to take the context into consideration when dealing with Pauls individual writings, and the totality of Paul's teaching into consideration before jumping to universal conclusions about those individual writings. We talked earlier about the Proverbs 31 woman as feminist. When 1 Timothy was penned, it was addressed to Timothy in Ephesus. Regarding the specific passages, my understanding from commentaries I have read is that Timothy was dealing with perhaps the first instance of radical feminism as we have alluded to it before. As I understand it, the women in the Ephesian church were continually loudly interupting the teaching and worship, and were trying quite literally to wrest authority away from the church leadership. It was specifically to this group of disruptive, devisive females that Paul turns his attention.

Here is a really good and balanced treatment of I Timothy 2:8-15

 

[MooCar93]

When 1 Timothy was penned, it was addressed to Timothy in Ephesus. Regarding the specific passages, my understanding from commentaries I have read is that Timothy was dealing with perhaps the first instance of radical feminism as we have alluded to it before. As I understand it, the women in the Ephesian church were continually loudly interupting the teaching and worship, and were trying quite literally to wrest authority away from the church leadership. It was specifically to this group of disruptive, devisive females that Paul turns his attention.

That's one theory, and to be honest, I hope it's the case. I just really wish Paul, along with the rest of the men who wrote Scripture, would have been a little clearer on this subject. The way parts of Scripture are written make it entirely too easy for them to be used against women.

 

[gengwall]

That's one theory, and to be honest, I hope it's the case. I just really wish Paul, along with the rest of the men who wrote Scripture, would have been a little clearer on this subject. The way parts of Scripture are written make it entirely too easy for them to be used against women.

Exactly! And that is why one can't just look at parts of scripture for universal answers. The general point that I am making is that Paul was not universally anti-woman, despite what individual passages might suggest. He, in other areas, was very Christlike in his orientation to women and in his view of thier place in society and marriage (1 Cor 7 being a prime example). Not only that, but Paul's rhetoric, when negative, in reagrd to women was often equally as stinging when he dealt with men. But we certainly don't think Paul was a man-hater.

(Did you see the link in my post above? I added it when you were probably writing. Look at that commentary. Although it acknowledges 1 Tim 2 still leaves many questions, it is a wonderful example of incorporating all of Pauls teaching as to not get too carried away by but a few of Paul's comments).

 

[MooCar93]

Exactly! And that is why one can't just look at parts of scripture for universal answers. The general point that I am making is that Paul was not universally anti-woman, despite what individual passages might suggest. He, in other areas, was very Christlike in his orientation to women and in his view of thier place in society and marriage (1 Cor 7 being a prime example). Not only that, but Paul's rhetoric, when negative, in reagrd to women was often equally as stinging when he dealt with men. But we certainly don't think Paul was a man-hater.

(Did you see the link in my post above? I added it when you were probably writing. Look at that commentary. Although it acknowledges 1 Tim 2 still leaves many questions, it is a wonderful example of incorporating all of Pauls teaching as to not get too carried away by but a few of Paul's comments)

Yes, I don't think he was a woman-hater, per se. I do think much of his writing implies that he thought of women as slightly inferior, though. I think we must agree to disagree on that.

And yes, I read parts of it, but, to be honest, it's pretty lengthy, and I'm trying to get some work done at the same time. I'll read it more in depth when I get out. Thanks, though.

 

[gengwall]

Yes, I don't think he was a woman-hater, per se. I do think much of his writing implies that he thought of women as slightly inferior, though. I think we must agree to disagree on that.

And yes, I read parts of it, but, to be honest, it's pretty lengthy, and I'm trying to get some work done at the same time. I'll read it more in depth when I get out. Thanks, though.

Yes, it is long. But it is very good. I hope you get a chance to go through it.

I will make one more attempt to convince you:

I Cor 7 establishes total equality in marriage regarding sex. Paul does not feel women are objects or possessions and sex is not a right for men and a duty for women. In the bedroom, Paul clearly does not see women as inferior.

Paul addresses both Timothy, his most beloved disciple, and Priscilla with the same title in the same chapter of Romans. He did not view Priscilla to be inferior to Timothy in their work with him in the ministry.

Paul addressed women as readily as men in Acts. He did not consider them inferior in terms of either ability or worthiness to receive the Gospel.

And finally, Pauls frequent instructions for wives to submit and husbands to love are equal in sincerity and in burden. Specifically, submission, in the Godly design, is not a position of inferiority but of compliment. I know it is almost impossible to see it that way due to the intense influence of history and culture. But that doesn't change the fact that it is. If anything, the very fact that our view of submission is "worldly" should convince us that something is amiss and cause us to find a new paradigm from which consider the subject.

 

[gengwall]

I thought it might be fun to give the breakdown of the word that we derive "patriarch" from. It is derived from the Greek word "patriarches"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Strong's Number: 3966 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Patriarches[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]None[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Masculine [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Definition[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

1. patriarch, founder of a tribe, progenitor
   1. of the twelve sons of Jacob, founders of the tribes of Israel
   2. of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Although masculine in gender, and a male founder is presumed, this could be applied to any founder including a female if the culture was set up that way.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Patriarches" comes from two Greek words[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]patria - meaning family (Strong's 3965)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]archo - meaning "beginning" i.e founder (Strong's 757)[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Curiously, "patria" is a feminine noun. But it, in turn is derived from:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]pater - meaning father (Strong's 3962)[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"Pater" can also mean parents in the plural and can have other gender neutral (although male assumed in the culture) meanings such as teacher.[/FONT]

What I find curious in all of this is the relative gender neutrality and the lack of overt hierarchy or authority. It goes to show even more that our current definitions for patriarchy have more to do with historical context than the original meaning of the word. Another interesting point is that there was no corresponding "matriarch" word in greek. That word did not surface until the 17th century abstracted from patriarch to recognize and differentiate female heads of state. So, in biblical times, "patriarches" could technically refer to a female, although the male dominated culture makes it unlikely it ever found such a practical use. (It would be interesting research to see if any godesses or other females in Greek mythology were ever referred to as "patriarches")

 

[gengwall]

Everyone seems to have moved on but I want to make one more pitch. I think part of the reason why women have such a hard time accepting even the notion of biblical patriarchy is that we continue, based on historical patterns, to use the wrong analogies. Patriarchy has been comparred to a company with husband as boss, a military unit with husband as some superior rank over the wife, even a plane with husband as pilot (although this gets a little closer). The trouble with all of these analogies is that the husband still has an authority over the wife, meaning he is deligator, orderer, ruler, decision maker. I propose that these are all counter to what the bible teaches the relationship should be and offer this as a closer analogy to the biblical model.

I believe that marriage and the family represent a team. Given that structure, the biblical role for the husband is best illustrated in the team captain. This is a person who is a leader, but by model only. The team captain has no authority to make decisions or give orders to teammates. All authoritarian matters still rest soley with the coach (God). The team captain does not have any particular team duty or position to fill, as the team members all have their roles. In fact, the team captain often is not even the most gifted athelete on the team. But they are the one chosen to lead "in spirit" and by example.

And how does the biblical concept of "submission" fit into this analogy for the other members of the team? Remember the note on submission:

In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden".

This sounds very much like the attitude team members should have toward their captain.

I really like the analogy of the team captain as it reflects so many attributes of both marriage and family, and of the "headship" the bible describes (as opposed to the "headship" the world has promoted for thousands of years.) I'm curious if others have ever looked at it in this way and what their thoughts might be.