God Against Patriarchy

Unfortunately, many folks look upon the Hebrew Bible as an endorsement of patriarchy - where men take the lead role in the family and society. They point out that God is portrayed as a male, most of the principal characters are male, and the Torah is addressed to males. Indeed, among the Jews, a common morning prayer begins: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman." Hence, while this view is NOT universal, we can see that it has permeated Judeo-Christian thought and does represent a widespread traditional view of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament.

Nevertheless, I believe that there is strong scriptural evidence to suggest that this view constitutes a very superficial reading and understanding of those writings. Now, there is absolutely no mistaking the fact that most of the very human authors of Scripture reflect the patriarchal societies that produced them. However, when we take a closer look at the Divine contribution to those writings, a very different picture and story begin to emerge. In fact, it is my contention that those writings reflect a Divine hostility toward the notion of patriarchy! Predisposed to dismiss what is to follow? Please, hear me out!

In the book of Genesis, there are two accounts of the creation of humankind. In chapter one, we have what some scholars have described as an abbreviated account of that event. We read: "Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us. They will reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all the wild animals on the earth, and the small animals that scurry along the ground.' So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:26-27, NLT) As you can see, this passage suggests that both genders (male and female) were created in God's image and given dominion over the other creatures which God had created to inhabit the earth.

The second chapter, however, makes a clear distinction between the creation of the male and the creation of the female. It treats them as two separate events with the man being created before the woman. Even so, the narrative there suggests that the woman is the perfect counterpart for the man - a helper equal to the task of facing life's challenges together. Indeed, we are told that "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." (Genesis 2:24, NLT) In other words, two halves of one entity! There is no suggestion that one half is in a superior position in the relationship between the two until the fall in chapter three - when they are punished for their disobedience. (Genesis 3:16) In other words, their subsequent inequality was a result of their fallen state!

"But what about circumcision, Lonnie?" my skeptical friends will demand. "That was something specifically addressed to males," they will remind us. My reply: "YES, ONLY MALES were required by God to mutilate their genitalia!" Indeed, let's take a closer look at God's covenant with Abraham and Sarah, and the significance of the ritual of circumcision.

When Abraham was ninety-nine years old, we are informed that God appeared to him and revealed that he would give him many descendants. (Genesis 17:1-2) Then, we read: "At this, Abram fell face down on the ground. Then God said to him, 'This is my covenant with you: I will make you the father of a multitude of nations!'" (Genesis 17:3-4, NLT) As a sign of this covenant, Abraham was given the ritual of circumcision, which would be required thereafter for all of his MALE descendants. Notice the specific language of the text: "hen God said to Abraham, “Your responsibility is to obey the terms of the covenant. You and all your descendants have this continual responsibility. This is the covenant that you and your descendants must keep: Each male among you must be circumcised. You must cut off the flesh of your foreskin as a sign of the covenant between me and you. From generation to generation, every male child must be circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. This applies not only to members of your family but also to the servants born in your household and the foreign-born servants whom you have purchased. All must be circumcised. Your bodies will bear the mark of my everlasting covenant. Any male who fails to be circumcised will be cut off from the covenant family for breaking the covenant.” (Genesis 17:9-14, NLT)

Now, as it is logical to presume that Adam was created with a penis (foreskin included), and he was included in the survey which pronounced everything that God had created as being "very good," it is hard for us to imagine circumcision being regarded as an improvement upon the original design! Indeed, under the circumstances, it would not be inappropriate to characterize this practice as a mutilation of male genitalia. In other words, Hebrew men were required to suffer a painful and permanent disfigurement of the most visible manifestation of their manhood! Given this reality, it is hard to imagine anyone regarding this as an honor or privilege not afforded to females!

Continuing, in the same account, we read: "Then God said to Abraham, “Regarding Sarai, your wife—her name will no longer be Sarai. From now on her name will be Sarah. And I will bless her and give you a son from her! Yes, I will bless her richly, and she will become the mother of many nations. Kings of nations will be among her descendants.” (Genesis 17:15-16, NLT) Now, excuse me if I have missed something. I know that someone will point it out if I have. God promised Abraham and Sarah that they would be the father and mother of many nations, but Abraham and all of his male descendants were to be required to chop off part of their manhood. Excuse me, but I don't remember reading any instructions about Sarah and her daughters being required to disfigure their vaginas! And this is to be regarded as a male privilege or advantage over females? Does God have a well-developed sense of humor or what?

Nevertheless, the patriarchs (along with most of their descendants) have regarded this ritual as a sacred and privileged symbol of their covenant with God. Indeed, you will notice that two of the patriarchs required a servant in one case and a son in another to grab their junk and swear an oath - all because their junk had been circumcised (see Genesis 24:2-9 and 47:29-31). For those who may be unfamiliar with this topic, I am pleased to recommend the article "Put Your Hand Under My Thigh" - The Patriarchal Oath by R. David Freedman (Biblical Archaeology Society Library). Oh well, boys will be boys - right?

Moreover, even within the pages of Torah, this whole notion of male circumcision quickly began to take on a more symbolic and universally applicable connotation which would foreshadow the work of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. In the final book of Torah, in an address to the entire assembly (male and female), we read: "Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn." (Deuteronomy 10:14-16, ESV) Then, later in the same book, we read: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." (Deuteronomy 30:6, ESV) In other words, this spiritual kind of circumcision would apply to everyone - male and female.

Later, in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, this same language was addressed to the MEN of Judah (whom we presume were physically circumcised). We read: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds." (Jeremiah 4:4, ESV) Later, in the same book, we also read a more universal message: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31-34, ESV)

Unfortunately, too many folks are more motivated to identify the privileges and authority of males in Scripture than they are to discovering the universal spiritual principles found therein which apply to both genders equally. Indeed, this kind of confirmation bias is NOT intended to get at spiritual truth. Instead, it is meant to confirm the notion that God has placed men at the head of the table - in charge! In this respect, patriarchy is seen as the eternal principle being espoused, and NOT as a concession to the manmade ancient societal structure which already existed at the time that the Hebrew Bible was written! In other words, is it possible that we are making God responsible for ancient cultural artifacts which do NOT reflect "his" view of how things should operate in the human realm? After all, I don't know of anyone who has suggested that God's standard of morality/righteousness only applies to the males of our species!

In the New Testament, in keeping with his intent to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, Christ was himself circumcised as a male Hebrew baby. (Luke 2:21) Nevertheless, as a man, Christ spoke openly with women and included them in his inner circle (see the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). "Yes, but he designated twelve MALE apostles," my patriarchal friends will remind us. This is certainly true, but we should also consider what some of those MALE apostles had to say on this subject.

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome: "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." (Romans 2:25-29, ESV) Doesn't this passage suggest that a woman who keeps the Law is better off than a circumcised male who doesn't keep it?

A little later, in the same epistle, Paul continued: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.' Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Romans 4:7-12, ESV) Hence, we can see that Paul believed that Christ had rendered the physical circumcision of a male penis as being spiritually irrelevant!

Likewise, in his letter to the saints of Galatia, Paul wrote: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." (Galatians 3:28-29, ESV) In other words, female Christians were to be regarded as God's children and Abraham's offspring - just like their male counterparts! In this same epistle, Paul went on to write: "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Galatians 5:2-6, ESV)

"Alright, Lonnie, but didn't Paul himself say that women should be quiet, not preach in Church, and submit themselves to their husbands?" my friends will demand. Once again, the real question which we should be asking ourselves is "Do these quotations from Paul's letter reflect cultural artifacts from the world of the First Century?" OR "Do they point to eternal spiritual principles which God intended to apply to all males and females for all time?" And, if you answered "yes" to the second question, then how do you explain Christ's statement that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:30, ESV) Oops, no husbands and wives among God's people in the future! In other words, just how eternal can these principles be?

Moreover, the Apostle Paul also worked with Priscilla and Aquila (husband and WIFE) as part of a joint missionary effort, and the couple took Apollos "aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." (Acts 18, Romans 16:3) Paul also wrote to Timothy that his spiritual foundation in Christ should be credited to his mother and grandmother. (II Timothy 1:5) Now, you go right on believing whatever you want to about patriarchy, but don't bother trying to convince me that your belief in it originated in the mind of God!