Tenet 1 God and gender

Tenet 1. God reveals Himself as masculine, not feminine. God is the eternal Father and the eternal Son, the Holy Spirit is also addressed as “He,” and Jesus Christ is a male. (Matt. 1:25; 28:19; Jn. 5:19; 16:13)

Matt. 1:25 – and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

Matt. 28:19 – Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 5:19 – Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

John 16:13 – However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

1a) “God reveals Himself as masculine”

God reveals himself in masculine terms like Father, Son, and king and warrior. Masculine images for God are used in scriptures. So far, so good.

b) “God does not reveal himself as feminine.”

God refers to carrying Israel in God’s womb and giving birth to Israel. (Deut. 32:18: You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth. Also Isaiah 46:3-4) God reveals himself as a midwife – always a female task in that culture – in Ps. 22:9a and 71:6. God reveals himself as a woman looking for coins in Luke 15, a housewife baking in Luke 13:20-21, and as a mother eagle in Deut. 32:11. Deut. 32:11 doesn’t contain the word mother, but it describes a mother eagle. For more female images, click here. There are certainly female images for God in scripture. God reveals himself both as father and mother in Isa. 45:10.

c) “God is the eternal Father and the eternal Son,”

By the way this is worded, are they denying that the spirit is God? Most people would say God is Father, Son and Spirit. This is a bad word choice.

TBP (short for Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy) don’t use any verses to back up that God is eternal, so they have not proven it as Biblical. That can be easily rectified - it is Biblical and just need a scripture reference.

d) “the Holy Spirit is also addressed as “He,” “

This is true in the English, but the book of John was written in Greek, not English. Greek has gender-neutral pronouns, and John used gender neutral Greek words in this verse. English has only he, she and it, so translators had to choose one of the three.

KJV-only-readers believe that the English carry as much authority as the original, so to them this text will prove the Spirit is called “He.” Because I am not disproving the KJV only view in here, I’ll mark this with “it can be Biblically defended (from the KJV, not Greek), but so can another view.”

e) “and Jesus Christ is a male.”

 

Yes. But since Christ came to earth to be the servant of us all, since coming to earth meant emptying Himself of heavenly status, this is an argument against male-on-top hierarchy.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Some Christians believe that because the Bible writers say God is not a man, and because God (except Jesus on earth) has no physical body that can be male; God is neuter. The scriptures they use for God not being a man is this: Num. 23:19 and 1Sa. 15:29

Others remind us of the feminine and masculine images for God, that God reveals himself both as male and as female. 

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically
      This is a partial truth. (The other part of the truth, that together make it Biblical, will be added in brackets.)
      Scripture say the opposite

      This can be defended Biblically, but TBP don't give such a verse.

1. God reveals Himself as masculine (and as feminine), not feminine. God is the eternal Father and the eternal Son, the Holy Spirit is also addressed as “He,” and Jesus Christ is a male.

Tenet 2

The Image of God and Gender Roles

Tenet 2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption. The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man. (Gen. 1:27-28; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; Eph. 5:28; 1 Pet. 3:7)

Gen 1:27-28 – So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I Cor. 11:3 – But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Man is the head, but not all Greek scholars agree on the meaning of head here. 1 Cor. was first written in Greek, and their word here is kephale. Like the English head, kephale has the first meaning of the body part above the neck. After that, it has some symbolic meanings. Is "authority figure" one of them? Some Greek scholars say this word never mean authority figure. Even scholars who very much like to see male authority in the Bible, claim head mean "origin" more often than "authority."

(If you read authority into head here, you would read the authority figure of every man – atheistic man, male murderer, male Hindu priest, or drug abuser in the gutter- is Christ. “Is Christ.” Not “ought to be Christ.” Is He indeed their authority figure?)

1 Cor. 11:7 – For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

This text is rather baffling, as the woman was already called the image of God in Gen. 1, and God crowns us with glory according to Ps. 8:5 (man in :4 is not a gender specific word in the Hebrew),and we (male and female) change into the image of God’s glory (2Co 3:18).

Eph. 5:28 – So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

Eph. 5:28 is a very good truth, but seems to have no relevance to the tenet.

I Pet. 3:7 – Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
 

Being heirs together of the grace of life probably mean that they share equal worth in redemption. Whatever is meant by "as to the weaker vessel", this does not deminish the equal worth of women before God. Women should not be dishonored.
 

2a) Both man and woman are made in God’s image

Yes. That is Biblical.

b) (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character)

If that explanation of what "made in God's image" mean is in the Bible, they should give a Bible reference for it. It’s easy to believe, but these are called Biblical tenets, and this one is not backed up from the Bible.

c) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth.

Yes. (Note that earth does not include people. Humans should exercise domininion over animals and planet, but Gen. 1:27-28 cannot be used to defend taking dominion over other humans. After all, they have the same dominion mandate.)

d) They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption.

Yes. Men and women were created equal, and God saves them completely and equally from whatever was marred by sin. As such, even if sin marred the equality, then saved men and women would be again equal in God's sight, or "equal in redemption." It could have had a verse to back it up, but it is Biblical. In fact, equality seemingly goes further: In the church, by Gal. 3:28, it does not matter if someone is male or female, as (s)he has Christ inside.

TBP show lip service to equality here, but in practice, where do we see them applying this truth? In what ways are men and women treated as equals within Vision Forum’s teachings and actions? (Also see the words “functional equals" in tenet 14.)

e) The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man.

The text certainly does not say that man is the image and glory "in terms of authority." Authority is not in the text. By Ps. 8:5 and 2Co 3:18, we know "woman is the glory of man" is only a part of the truth, as she is, like man, also the glory of God.
 

Other ways Christians understand this:

I already touched on the opinion difference over head in Greek. Also notice that "the head of woman is man" is singular, and may refer to Adam being the head (source, beginning) of Eve. If women are the glory of man, men should be proud of them.
Many Christians believe that 1 Cor 11, the passage from which they get woman as the glory of man, is a place where Paul mentions a lot of contradictory ideas the Corinthians had about head coverings. "Woman is the glory of man" and perhaps even "Christ is the head of the man, the man of the woman" are quotes from those contradictory ideas. Paul answers the arguing factions with: "Everyone can decide for her(him)self, rather than to argue (with the choice of anyone else)."
Some think that it is dishonoring towards women to suggest men - not women - have a type of authority which scripture does not mention, and that it therefore contradict the command to show honor to wives.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically

      This is not Biblically defended

2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption.
The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man.

Tenet 3

Tenet 3. God ordained distinct gender roles for man and woman as part of the created order. Adam’s headship over Eve was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world. (Gen. 2:18ff.; 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; 1 Tim. 2:12-13)

Gen 2:18 – And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
Who is referred to as "man" here? Some would say all males of all eras, and all women are made to be helpers. But that is not in the text. What it safely and certainly mean, is that God made Adam a helper/ helpmeet, and that helper was female. Beyond that, we try to read things into scripture which is not in there. Some read helping as a defined women’s role, but nothing in there say all females are made to be helpers and no men are.

What is more, nothing in there imply inferiority of the helper, or authority of the helped. The Hebrew word translated as helper is usually used for God. (As in Ps. 121:2 My help cometh from the Lord.) The weak cannot help as that word imply. (Isa 30:5)

Gen. 3:9 – Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

The idea that Patriarchs have here is that God called Adam because he and Eve had different roles, and different roles make for different responsibilities. But the text doesn’t spell out God's motive. "Other ways Christians understand this" will expand on the point.

I Cor. 11:3, 7 – But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. … For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

These verses were commented on in tenet 2.

I Tim. 2:12-13 – And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

When Paul say "I do not permit" he means that Paul does not permit, not that God does not permit. (See 1 Cor. 7:10 and :12 for how he distinguish between his advice and God’s.) Notice also, for example, that Priscilla is a co-worker of him (Rom 16:3), who taught Apollos, a man “mighty in the scriptures.” (Acts 18:24,26)

3a) God ordained distinct gender roles for man and woman

"Helper" is not directly proven, from the Bible, to be a role of any human beside Eve herself. No role is spelled out in Gen. 3:9. 1 Cor. 11:3 calls either Adam or all men "head" in some way that may or may not have to do with authority. If it is all men, it is a sort of gender role, regardless of what head mean. If it refers only to Adam, no gender role is spelled out there. In 1 Tim 2:12-13, Paul is speaking for himself. When Paul speaks for himself, we cannot conclude God's views from it.

b) as part of the created order.

If man being head is a gender role, 1 Cor. 11:3 doesn’t spell out this role is part of the created order. 1 Tim. 2 mention the creation order, but links it to Paul’s opinion and not God’s will.

c) Adam’s headship over Eve

He was head in some way, but we have not established what head meant in the Greek the Bible was written in. So we are not sure if this means he was the origin from which she came, or her authority figure.

d) was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world.

It depends on what "head" mean. If head mean authority: God do not say, in anything quoted here, that Adam had it at the beginning. If head mean origin/ source: Adam was that from the beginning, obviously.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Gen 2:18 can be interpreted in several ways:

• Man may refer only to Adam, and it may say that God made a helper for lonely Adam. Not for all men, just Adam.
• Or it may say God made helpers for needy men. It does not spell out that all women are helpers, only that God made helpers, and that Eve were the first of them.
• Or it may say that God made a helper for the first human, and still make helpers (of whatever gender) to lonely or needy humans (of whatever gender.)
• Or it may say that men need women, and women were created to be helpers.

What it does not say, is that this help is assistance and obedience. Nothing imply that this kind of help mean lifting a finger. It could be that by her mere essence, she helped the lonely Adam. 

As for God calling Adam after they sinned in Gen. 3, it may be that he called both the man and the woman when calling Adam. Gen 5:2 say: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Or he could have called the man first, because the man was guiltier. Kay Bonikowsky gives this answer:

"Adam willfully broke God’s covenant. He believed eating the fruit was wrong, yet he ate anyway.

• Adam broke God’s covenant. (Hosea 6:7)
• Adam knowingly disobeyed, and because of this he was held responsible. (Romans 5:14)

Eve was deceived by the serpent into eating. To be deceived means to believe something false. Eve believed eating was good, not wrong.

• Eve was thoroughly deceived when she ate the fruit. (1 Tim 2:14)
• She was led astray by the serpent’s cunning. (2 Cor.11:3)
• She said herself, “The serpent deceived me and I ate.” (Gen. 3:6)

God looks at the heart, the motives. (1 Sam 16:7)"

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      It can be Biblically defended, but so can another view

      This is not Biblically defended

3. God ordained (a) distinct gender roles for man and woman as part of the created order. Adam’s headship over Eve was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world.

Tenet 4

4. Although sin has distorted their relationship, God’s order of authority for husbands and wives has not changed, and redemption enables them to make substantial progress in achieving God’s ideal for their relationship. (Gen. 3:16; Eph. 5:22ff.)

Gen 3:16 – To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.

“He shall rule” is not a command, but a statement of what will happen. It does not say if this is God’s will. Unless, of course, you see “thou shalt bruise his heel” (:15) as a command to Satan that God want him to harm humans.

Eph. 5:22, 25 – Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. … Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it …etc. (Look up the rest of the passage)

Eph 5:22 starts in the middle of a sentence in the Greek it was written in. The "wives, [submit to] your own husbands” has no verb in the Greek. It borrows a verb from :21, “Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God.”
One Greek scholar suggest a good translation of :21-22 will be "... mutually submitting in the fear of Messiah; wives (mutually submitting) to your husbands as to the Lord.” As husbands are part of “one another”, the order to submit is given to husbands in :21. In 1st century society, men and women had very unequal positions, and following these teachings would actually have brought them closer to equality.

4a) Although sin has distorted their relationship,

Yes.

b) God’s order of authority for husbands and wives has not changed,

To Biblically prove that his order of authority stayed the same, you would have to prove that there was authority pre-fall, and then that he will rule (Gen. 3:16) mentions God's will, and not just a prophetic statement of how things will be.

c) and redemption enables them to make substantial progress in achieving God’s ideal for their relationship.

Yes, that is Biblical. But we have not Biblically established that authority was His ideal either pre-fall or post-fall.

Other ways Christians understand this:

While the authors of TBP believe that distinction was made between men and women in Eph. 5 because God gave them different gender roles, some others believe it was made because Ephesian society put them in different roles. Applying the same Christian principles for the very varied positions of men and women called for different applications.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is not Biblically defended

4. Although sin has distorted their relationship, God’s order of authority for husbands and wives has not changed, and redemption enables them to make substantial progress in achieving God’s ideal for their relationship.

Tenet 5

5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God. (Gen. 18:19; Eph. 6:4)

Gen 18:19 – For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

This speaks of God knowing Abraham, the father of all believers. It does not teach anything about what a Christian father is.

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Yes. Interestingly enough, the same word that is translated fathers here, is translated as parents in Heb. 11:23

a) A husband and father is head of the household

If bringing someone up in the training and admonition of the Lord is headship, then the father (and mother?) is one of the heads of his children.
And Christian children are Christians, so the congregation's members with a teaching gift also have the authority to teach them, as they may teach believers. That would, by this definition, make them heads of the children too. He is in some way the head (Does this mean source/ origin? Or authority figure? Greek scholars disagree) of his wife. The head of his household? It depends on how head should be understood, and what is included as "household".

b) a family leader,

He should be one of the people leading his children, but what text say he should lead his wife, widowed father, or sisters or brothers or aunts or nephews or anyone else in the family?

c) provider,

This is not in the text. Making provision only a male gender role is contrary to 1 Tim 5:16. Technically it is true that husbands/ fathers should provide, but the point of including this in TBP is to claim it as a gender role. And that turns a technical truth into a lie.

d) and protector,

This is not in the text.

e) with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God.

He has the mandate to direct his children in the ways of God by Eph. 6:4. If the translation as “parents” of that same word is correct in Hebrews, his wife does too. His children are not synonymous with his household. His wife is part of his household, and nothing said up to now show he can direct her in paths of obedience to God. (I think that both husbands and wives can potentially lead each other closer to God, but it is up to TBP to prove their point if they can.)

Does every father –Christian or not, knowledgeable or not - have the authority to lead his household in paths of obedience to God? Eph. 6:4 does not state it.
TBP say a father (without even specifying the father’s religious view) have the authority to lead his household in paths of obedience to God. But the Bible verse itself speaks to believing fathers (parents?) and their children, and don’t mention authority. The verse could even imply that a father needs to get the knowledge, wisdom, authority or whatever is needed, to do so. It does not tell he already has it.

Other ways Christians understand this:

(No extra notes here)

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically

      This is not Biblically defended

5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God.

(If the word “household” was replaced with “children”, and mothers were included as possible leaders of their children, this tenet would  have fared better.)

Tenet 6

6. A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God. (Ps. 103:13; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 11:29-30; Col. 3:21; 1 Pet. 3:7)

Ps. 103:13 – As a father pities his children, So the LORD pities those who fear Him.

Mal. 3:17 – “They shall be Mine,” says the LORD of hosts, “On the day that I make them My jewels. And I will spare them As a man spares his own son who serves him.”

Matt. 11:29-30 – “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

These verses describe what God is like. Everyone, not just leaders or/ and married fathers, should follow Christ.

Col. 3:21 – Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

I Pet. 3:7 – Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

This tells to understand and honor her, not that you have authority over her. The word “vessel” is usually used in the Bible for the body or material things, and a weaker vessel probably refer to either physical strength, or to the fact that at a time when women often died in childbirth, they were weaker in health.

6a) A man’s authority in the home

TBP have not yet shown from scripture that men have authority that women do not.

b) should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader,

Yes, that is how to lead. The problem is when Patriarchy teaches men should lead in areas where the Bible does not prove they should. However gently a man lead where his leadership does not belong, it still is usurping the freedom of another.

c) following the example of Jesus Christ.

Yes. A verse for that will enhance TBP.

d) Leadership is a stewardship from God.

Once again, TBP give no verse for it. Some leadership is stewardship, but wrongly usurped leadership is theft.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Many Christians would not use the term “authority in the home” for an admonition to bring your children up in the faith, something which your wife and your church (and perhaps others) could also participate in. And it is common to believe that wrongly seized leadership is not stewardship.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically
      This is not Biblically defended

 

6. A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God.