Rachel,
The fact that God gave laws that were patriarchal is contrary to the feminist theory that an evil patriarchy oppresses women. Modern Feminist thought sees patriarchy as evil, as the source of women's woes. Women are perpetual victims of the patriarchy. That contradicts the Bible, which has a number of patriarchal laws. If God is good, and God gave patriarchal laws, then this Feminist theory is wrong.
We also have to keep in mind that philosophies change over the centuries. A few centuries ago, having a monarch was the norm in countries in many parts of the world. Nowadays, many peoples believe that for a government to be 'legitimate' it has to be democratic. But, while the Bible shows God giving laws regarding monarchy and that God worked with Israel in other systems of government, it doesn't endorse democracy. We shouldn't assume that Democratic concepts are God-ordained concepts. We should not assume that even some of our concepts about human rights are rights that we are endowed with by our Creator. My country has a Bill of Rights that includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This has been interpreted to allow pornography and blasphemy to be legal. The US government may not prosecute someone for blaspheming God. But that does not mean that someone who blasphemes God will be guiltless on the day of judgment. God judges sins that nations do not.
The book of Deuteronomy did allow for divorce, as Christ explained, because of the hardness of men's hearts. But where does Jesus teach that the cancelling of the vows of wives or daughters came because of the hardness of men's hearts? Where does He say that Israel inheritance going to sons was because of the hardness of the heart? Why did he choose 12 male apostles? This is not to downplay the role of women. He had women disciples as well, and of course they were important, but the 12 played a leadership role.
Twice the New Testament list requirements for the elder or bishop role, that the bishop must be a man. I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 use different words for 'man.' The bishop must be a man with one wife. This is also patriarchal.
God's design is certain 'good patriarchy.' God has revealed Himself as the Father. Of course, you can find analogies to something a female does. For example, Jesus said He wanted to gather Jerusalem unto him like a hen gathers her chicks under Her wings. But Jesus is still definitely a man, in spite of the analogy. God the Father is not a man, but He did create man in is own image. He created male and female, in His image. So some aspects of God are revealed in creation. This helps us understand God to some limited degree. God is a Father, and He created men with the potential to be fathers. So God is in a very real sense a Father, as He has revealed Himself to be through Christ. It is not anthropromorphic language to call God the Father. Fatherhood began with God and fatherhood in our earthly realm is a reflection of the divine reality, though our realm has been tainted by sin. God is the Father, as we live in a patriarchal creation, with God the Father over all. So this patriarchy is good. God also ordained that wives submit to their husbands and children obey their parents. Again, this is something 'patriarchal' that is part of the divine order of creation.
The following verses illustrate the patriarchal nature of the creation, in heaven and earth. The word translated 'family' is 'patria'. We do indeed live in a divine patriarchy.
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
This commentary further explains it.
Ellicot's Commentary for English Readers said:
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(15) Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.—The original word (
patria) here rendered “family” is literally derived from the word “father” (
pater)
. It has been proposed to render it
fatherhood, and translate,
from whom all fatherhoodwhatever derives its name—all lower fatherhood being, in fact, a shadow and derivative from the Fatherhood of God. The translation is tempting, yielding a grand sense, and one thoroughly accordant with the treatment of the earthly relationship below (
Ephesians 6:1-4). But the usage of the word is clearly against it; and we must render it
every family—that is, every body of rational beings in earth or heaven united under one common fatherhood, and bearing the name (as in a family or clan) of the common ancestor. Such bodies are certainly the first germs or units of human society; what their heavenly counterparts may be, who can tell? The Apostle looks upon the fathers whose names they delight to bear as the imperfect representatives of God, and upon the family itself, with its head, as the type in miniature of the whole society of spiritual beings united in sonship to the Father in heaven. Hence he declares that it is ultimately from Him that every family derives the name of
patria, and by that very name bears witness to the Divine Fatherhood, on which he desires here to lay especial stress.
Does a woman on the street have to obey every random man? I certainly don't think so. But the New Testament gives teaching for families that is patriarchal. The wife is to submit to the husband. Paul twice writes that the bishop is to be a man.
Paul does say that in Christ there is no male or female, slave nor free. The context of the passage is that of being heirs according to the promise. Before, Judaism had allowed for conversion to Judaism, for Gentiles to be recognized as part of the people of God. But the way a woman could convert was through a man. If her husband converted and all the males in the household were circumcized, she could convert. She could marry a Jewish man and convert. Slaves could be converted if the head of the household converted and was circumcised, and the slaves were also circumcised. But, through Christ, the individual woman or individual slave could become a part of the household of faith, whether or no the husband or head of the household converted.
But did Paul teach absolute gender egalitarianism in his writings? Certainly not. He taught that wives are to submit to their husbands. He left instructions that the elder-overseer bishop be a man, speaking to two of his workers. Old Testament elders were also men. God gave laws concerning the king of Israel (even before Saul), not the queen of Israel. In the time of Moses, men were empowered as elders. There is plenty of patriarchy both in the old and New Testaments.
You can say we don't burn sacrifices anymore. (The temple is destroyed, but the apostles and many of the other Jewish believers might have done so after the ascension.) But the fact that the Old Testament is so patriarchal in many ways runs contrary to feminist thought that patriarchy is evil, and should cause anyone to doubt that promoting feminism is something on God's agenda.
So this idea that a man be the boss of his wife and that she obeys him might do well in a patriarchal society but does not bode well when a woman is just as independent as the man and has equal or more earning potential.
Men are to love their wives. I believe it is unhealthy for a marriage for a man to be domineering toward his wife. There is also sowing and reaping. I wouldn't want a boss or government official being oppressive toward me.
But you are wrong to oppose the idea that a wife has to obey her husband. I Peter 3 teaches women to submit to their husbands. Does that mean wives have to obey their husbands? Yes, because Peter explains in this chapter that wives should submit to their husbands even as Sarah obeyed Abraham. That's an example of what submission to the husband means, obedience to the husband. Like the passage points out, some husbands do not obey the word, and some of these may be more domineering to their wives. Peter said for wives to submit to their husbands that if any do not obey the word, they might be won by the lifestyle of their wives. Her obedience can help him be won from his disobedience.
