- PATRIARCHY
'peɪ.tri.ɑrk.i noun. System of governance in which the father, or eldest male, is ruler. - 2. System wherein women are largely excluded from positions of authority.
- [Patriarchal
'peɪ.tri.ɑr.kəl adjective.]
When people talk about patriarchy nowadays, they tend to mean the second definition above: The system is rigged in such a way that women can’t find their way into any official or significant positions of leadership. There is no way into it. At most they can have unofficial power, like a First Lady; they can have insignificant power, like being in charge of cleaning the break room. (Gee, what an honor.) But never any serious authority. The “old boys’ network” keeps shutting them out.
Obviously because the “old boys” don’t wanna work with women. Especially don’t wanna work for women. Doesn’t matter the reasons; they’re all different forms
What I’m writing about is the first definition: The government we see among the early Hebrews, in the families of Noah, Abraham, and Jacob before the Law was handed down; and to a lesser degree the system we see in families thereafter. Before there were judges and
Now, we Americans grew up under democracy. When we’re in a situation where there’s no leadership, we often figure, “Okay, we’ll take a vote.” All of us are equal, so the majority should rule, right? If one of us tries to assume power, we object, ’cause that’s not fair. But that’s because we were raised to be democratic. The ancients weren’t. Popular vote didn’t rule the day; the strongest or loudest or most dangerous did. This is Darwinism at its simplest.
The one best able to strike down his foes dwas usually the physically strongest; the man. And in order to maintain power, patriarchy was the system these men put into place. The man, the father of the family, the paterfamilias, ruled. They taught their kids this was the way things worked. So whereas our culture falls back on democracy to decide things, theirs fell back on patriarchy.
It wasn’t egalitarian; spouses got no equal say. Wasn’t democratic, where the kids got a vote too. It was a dictatorship. What the patriarch decided, was how things were. No one to overrule him, no constitution to say he violated civil rights, no legislature to control his behavior, no police to stop him. If he decided he was taking a second or third or hundredth wife, he did. If he forbade his daughter from marrying a certain man, she had to obey. If he ordered his son put to death for disobedience, off with his head. Seriously.
And there are a number of Christians who read about these “good old days” in the bible, and wouldn’t mind returning to them. Oh, I’ll get to those guys.
A nomad’s government.
You’ll notice most of the patriarchy is found in the first six books of the Old Testament. After God gave
But it took some time to do so. When you read Judges, you see for the first few centuries not every patriarch bothered to follow the Law. Instead they did as they pleased.
The patriarch was often the senior male in the “father’s house”
- His own immediate family: Wives and kids.
- His extended family: Adult children and their spouses, grandkids and their spouses, great-grandkids and their spouses, and so on. (Remember, they married young back then.)
- Other relatives who were in his care: Mother, father’s other wives, sisters and brothers, nieces and nephews, cousins.
- Guests. (Middle eastern hospitality being what it is.)
- Employees and their families.
- Slaves and their families.
- Livestock—camels, cattle, donkeys, goats, sheep, etc.—and any other possessions, like land, buildings, tents, tools, gold, etc.
These houses could get pretty huge. Even though Abraham’s immediate family only consisted of his wife, he still had enough subjects to put together an army, fight a battle against five kings, win, and rescue his nephew Lot.
Patriarchy was built on a sense of honor and shame. Kids were raised to do what’s honorable. Honor your parents, and things will go well with you.
There’s a big difference between an honor code and a moral code. In an honor code you’re not to embarrass yourself or others. You gotta look good, not necessarily be good. So yeah, there’s a great deal of
Lesser male relatives, like Lot, might be part of the patriarch’s company.
Once Lot chose to go his own way,
When families separated like this, they were expected to get permission and blessing from their patriarch. Jacob didn’t bother to do this: He gathered up his family and property, and left his father-in-law Laban.
Yep, kill Jacob. Who was gonna stop him? There was no law over patriarchs. No higher authority. No police. Jacob might fight back—which was known to happen. But patriarchy’s honor code discouraged that. The patriarch claimed the right to do as he chose with his subjects. When Reuben told his father Jacob he could kill Reuben’s sons if Reuben was unsuccessful in bringing back Benjamin,
Birthrights and double portions.
If you know the Elijah story, you know when Elijah was about to be raptured into heaven, this happened:
2 Kings 2.9 NIV - When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?”
- “Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit,” Elisha replied.
Various Christians wrongly interpret this to mean Elisha was asking for double the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Twice as much Spirit as Elijah—as if the Holy Spirit stingily gives us any less than his full power. As if he portions it out in such a way that Elijah only had a certain amount, and Elisha could ask for twice that… and Elisha’s successor could ask for twice that, and thereby get four times Elijah’s power. Seriously, I’ve heard preachers claim this. And claim if only Elijah and Elisha’s successors kept multiplying their portions of the Spirit; why, after a hundred generations, you’d be so mighty.
Set this profoundly stupid idea aside. What Elisha was actually asking was for the birthright. He wanted to become Elijah’s designated successor.
In medieval Europe only one child, typically the eldest male, inherited everything his father owned: His titles, his property, his duties. In patriarchal times, the patriarch’s property was divided equally between each of his sons. (And when there were no sons, the L
Customarily the birthright-holder was the patriarch’s eldest son. But the bible’s patriarchs constantly broke this custom:
- Isaac was Abraham’s second son.
- Jacob was Isaac’s second son.
- Joseph was Jacob’s 11th son.
- Ephraim was Joseph’s second son.
Even though God decreed fathers shouldn’t play favorites in picking successors,
Again, this didn’t mean the patriarch’s other sons didn’t become patriarchs over their own family units. Of course they did. But if they lived with their father’s successor, they lived under his patriarchy. And later in Israel’s history, as these extended families grew into tribes, the senior men of the family became chiefs. This is why we see genealogies all over the bible: It’s how the Hebrews determined the chiefs of their tribes.
Now God is the Father.
Patriarchy was the existing system of leadership in the world when the L
I know; you’re gonna hear various people claim God never abolished it. That he only mitigated it, and forbade some of its harsher practices, penalties, and abuses. That he even perpetuated patriarchy—which is why it’s okay for them to become patriarchs, who answer to nobody but God. It’s God’s plan!
But biblical patriarchs were absolute rulers—and God abolished their absolute rule. Because under the Law, the L
Patriarchs had the power to kill their subjects for any reason, have sex with any subject they wished, punish their subjects for any slight, fight their foes for any cause. Now they couldn’t. God implemented procedures. You had to establish guilt before punishing a crime. Most family members and slaves were sexually off-limits, and if you wanted to have sex with anyone you were obligated to marry ’em.
Every single one of God’s commands in the Law regarding family relationships removed power from the patriarchs. They no longer owned their subjects and property; God did. They no longer had the power of life and death over them; God did. Even the very land they lived on: God decreed where the tribes would go, and every 50 years any purchases of new land had to go back to their original owners. The patriarchs were no longer sovereign. God was.
Under patriarchy, women were largely excluded from positions of authority. Not entirely; wise men listened to their wives. Children were expected to honor their mothers. But if a patriarch was stubborn, stupid, and sexist, there wasn’t a whole lot women could do to stand up for themselves. But after the Law kicked in, the idea of women in authority was no longer unthinkable. God speaks to women, same as to men. Whenever he raises up a woman as his prophet, we gotta listen to her, same as the Hebrews were meant to listen to Moses.
Sexists nowadays can’t abide the idea. A woman prophet? Who ordered men, like her general, Barak ben Abinoam, around? They’d never permit it. Not in their churches; certainly not their families. (In fact many of ’em, when they list the judges in the bible, claim Deborah and Barak were co-judges—even though the scriptures describe Barak as no such thing. A leader, certainly; but not a judge.)
Today’s patriarchy: The “umbrellas of protection.”
How this supposedly works: God instructs, empowers, and guides the husband. The husband protects and provides for his family. The wife keeps the children and household in order. And there y’go.
Today’s sexists, you’ll notice, tend to be awfully familiar with the concept of patriarchy. Not so much the Law—not unless it serves their purposes. Hence a lot of ’em claim God never really abolished patriarchy; that it’s still his system of government. The way they depict it is with “umbrellas of protection” diagrams like the one on the right. I know; umbrellas aren’t in the bible. Doesn’t matter.
According to their diagram, God’s in charge of course. Top umbrella. God keeps away the rain—meant to represent the woes of life. Underneath him is the patriarch husband, who’s in charge of everything in the family, although he doesn’t run it directly, ’cause that’s the wife’s purview; he usually just instructs her as to how to do her job. His job is to provide income for his family, and defend it:
- Spiritually, by praying for his family, teaching them the scriptures, and banning all sorts of things which might spiritually corrupt them.
- Physically, with violence or the threat of violence. Fists, guns, whatever. Remember, the patriarch is king, so he recognizes no government or police outside himself.
The wife does everything else: She supervises the house and the kids. That is, depending on how much leeway her husband gives her; lots of ’em insist she do things to his satisfaction. And some patriarchs claim the wife only supervises the kids till the boys reach a certain age. Then they consider ’em young men, and since they figure
But while age might be a factor when it comes to obeying mother, it’s never a factor when it comes to obeying the patriarch. He fully expects to rule his kids, no matter how old they get, no matter whose roof they live under. The patriarch’s adult sons are always under his umbrella, even when they have families and kids of their own, and live in whole other countries. His adult daughters must always get his permission before they date anyone, no matter how old they are. Hence if Great-Grandpa decrees the family isn’t allowed to listen to that evil rock ’n roll music, his adult sons, their adult sons, and his great-grandkids, can’t. Seriously.
’Cause umbrellas of protection. ’Cause patriarchy.
Now as a metaphor, the idea of umbrellas is fundamentally stupid. Who puts umbrellas under other umbrellas? If the top umbrella can truly protect everything under it, there’s no need for other umbrellas! If the wife wife gets out from under her husband’s umbrella, why would God’s umbrella suddenly become useless?—how’s that work?
But patriarchs and sexists never bother to ask these questions. They really like the umbrellas.
Okay. As a biblical principle, there’s no evidence God approves of patriarchy. On the contrary: We have one Lord, Christ Jesus,
Some patriarchs try to disguise their heresy by putting “Jesus” on the top umbrella, not “God.” In so doing, all they’ve done is create an unbiblical go-between, keeping people from Jesus. There’s still only one Lord, and it’s not any bloody patriarch.
It’s why, when we reject patriarchy in all its forms, the wannabe dictators become enraged. Not kindly, patiently corrective: Furious. Quietly furious, but there’s an inordinate amount of anger underneath the surface. Angry, argumentative, spiteful, violent, abusive—all the works of the flesh.
In its place: God’s kingdom.
Patriarchy is simply
Ephesians 5.21-28 NIV 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
The word “submit” in verse 22 isn’t actually in the Greek text. It gets added by various bible translations because people are regularly in the habit of quoting verse 22 out of
Anyway, because verse 22 is taken out of context, people ignore verse 21, which shows us both the man and woman are submitting—to one another—and they ignore verse 25 and the rest of Paul’s writings about the man’s obligations to his woman.
Today’s wannabe patriarchs ignore everything but the verse which tells women to submit, and use it to boss around any woman they can intimidate. But again, we’re to submit to one another. Women to their men; men to their women. ’Cause in Christ, we’re equal.
Men are to submit to their women by loving ’em like Jesus loves his church. And the way he rules his church is by serving his church. He takes care of us. He loves us. He supplies our needs. He doesn’t treat us as subjects, like a patriarch would; he treats us as friends. He listens to us, has compassion on us, and forgives us. Today’s patriarchs, by comparison, are only interested in enforcing their own will, and submit to no one.
Yeah, women are to submit to their men. But men are to submit right back. And not submit in the sense of obedience—I boss you around, you boss me around, and we engage in some bizarre game of domination chicken. It’s wholly inappropriate in a kingdom where only Jesus is Lord. We submit to one another in that we
As you can see, God expects way better of us than patriarchy, a system which has no business in God’s kingdom. His followers have no business perpetuating or defending it. On the contrary: Knock it down whenever you can. Set up in its place God’s kingdom, where Jesus, not the patriarch, is Lord.
