18 Biblical Truths Our Church Fathers Missed: Part 1

Nearly fifteen years ago, I experienced a deep spiritual crisis, one that I now call a crisis of female dignity. Though I had been a committed Christian for over thirty years at that point, I found myself reading a section in Leviticus one day and was struck by the disturbing realization that marital fidelity was only required of women in the Mosaic Law. While other men’s wives were off limits, engaging in polygamy, sexual slavery, and prostitution was not considered adultery for men. With that realization, I began to look at other scriptures and ask serious questions about God’s view of women. Why, I wondered, did he seem so much more concerned about a man’s honor than a woman’s?

Though I possessed a Bible college education and had read God’s Word my entire life, I had never fully absorbed it from a woman’s perspective. When I did, I could not escape the disturbing questions that gnawed at my soul. These questions broke open the wounds of female inferiority that I had subconsciously learned to live with as a lifelong evangelical Christian. Initially, I turned to my pastor for answers and eventually ended up writing to a well-known apologist whose ministry I had supported. When they could not help, I turned to the Holy Spirit to guide me. Over time, the Lord led me to answers in his Word that not only restored my dignity but also gave me a more accurate understanding of the gospel. However, I had never been taught these truths in church.

At the beginning of my journey, I knew very little about patriarchy as a male-dominant social system and had no idea that it was okay to question traditional interpretations of Scripture on matters pertaining to women. A male-biased view of God was my understanding of biblical truth. Consequently, I also had no idea how to frame the insults to women I absorbed from various passages in both the Old and New Testaments. I had never been part of a church that allowed female pastors and had not heard other women voicing the questions that had me bound up. 

What I needed was a framework for how to understand gender injustice in God’s Word. Following are the primary insights that set me free from my dilemma and allowed me to read the Bible in proper context. In retrospect, I don’t recall ever hearing a sermon on any of these points, at least not in a way that connected the dots in Scripture to God’s high view of women. Ultimately, I came to the conviction that this was not just my issue. It belongs to the entire Church, and I believe we are at a crossroads in history facing a critical decision: what do we do with our patriarchal legacy?

The following nine truths provided the perspective I needed to read the Old Testament without feeling demeaned because of my sex. The New Testament will be covered in Part 2.

1.  Male and female were created equally in God’s image in the original adam (Gen. 1:27; 5:2). 

Both sexes are included in this initial creation, and it is not depicted in gendered terms until the female is taken out. One body becomes two when the female, described as ezer k’negdo (“a strength corresponding to man”)¹, is formed from the side of the original adam (Gen. 2:20-23). The male retains consciousness from the first human and is later called “Adam.” 

Any description of woman’s creation that sexualizes her or puts her in a secondary position to the man allows the male identity to dominate the female’s and lays the foundation for patriarchy. To ascribe preeminence to men from this account ignores the fact that the creation narrative is revealed in ascending order of grandeur, and none of the other creatures (over which the adam was given authority in Gen. 1:28) was identified as a suitable partner because they were not a corresponding image-bearer of the Creator (Gen. 2:19-20). Neither sex could be above the other since they literally are “one flesh.” (138-141, 188-190)

*For further reading in The Ultimate Reformation, page numbers are included after each point.

2.  In God’s marriage plan, the husband leaves his family to be united with his wife (Gen. 2:24).

In Genesis 2:24, man in the original Hebrew is the word for husband rather than the generic mankind. It is the husband who not only leaves his father and mother but also “cleaves,” “clings,” or “keeps close” (dabaq) to his wife, signifying a deep, loyal bond. Nowhere does Scripture state that she is to leave her family of origin. Such a union establishes the wife as the ancestral hub of the family rather than the husband, which aligns with the biological fact that their offspring are dependent on her body for life and nourishment, and only the mother’s parental status is beyond question at birth. This definition of marriage is reiterated in the New Testament by both Jesus and Paul and represents the relationship between Christ and the church (Matt. 19:4-5; Mark 10:7-8; Eph. 5:31-32). (141-142, 190-191, 209-210)

3.  Eve and her offspring (Christ and his church) are the target of Satan’s enmity and will ultimately defeat him (Gen. 3:15). 

Genesis 3:15, known as the protoevangelium, is the first reference in Scripture to God’s plan of redemption—pointing to the virgin birth of Jesus, the church as the seed of the woman (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:17), and the guarantee of victory over the Evil One. It also provides a clue to the reason for Satan’s enmity against Eve. Not only will the Messiah come through her, but the whole human race is birthed through the wombs of women. By disempowering them, the door is open to distort sexuality and wreak havoc on their children through rigged social and religious systems that perpetuate this damage from one generation to another. Ultimately, the serpent’s head will be crushed by the woman’s seed, which identifies Christ and his followers as the means by which Satan’s schemes will be defeated. (116-119,143-144, 193-194, 226)

4.  The reversal of Genesis 2:24 aligns with Satan’s intent to destroy both the woman’s lineage and her capacity to produce healthy, godly offspring.

Patrilineal marriage is both a root and a fruit of patriarchy. When men determined that they held preeminent rights to their children, women became subjects to control and own to ensure the man’s paternity. Rather than the husband leaving his parents to be joined with his wife, women and children now belonged to the father and his family. Along with this reversal, family property and the whole public sphere became men’s domain. This imbalance has shaped civilizations and skewed their moral compass in innumerable ways ever since, and the long history of female oppression is the result. It also destroyed any means of tracing Christ’s female ancestry back to Eve, which would have confirmed his divine paternity and clearly marked him as the seed of the woman. 

In this light, whatever enables female oppression aligns with the serpent’s agenda to thwart the redemption of the human race. Thus, restoring womanhood to her original status is a crucial strategy in the church’s struggle against the kingdom of darkness. (141-142, 197-198, 210-219)

5.  Male/female hierarchy is the only deviation in human relationships foretold in Genesis 3 as a consequence of sin (Gen. 3:16).

Genesis 3:16 is the most crucial verse in Scripture relating to the effects of the Fall on human relationships. Its biased translation and interpretation have had far-reaching consequences for women throughout history, as men have spoken for God, declaring that they were destined to be in charge, while women were cursed with labor pains and perpetual frustration in their “desire”—either for their husband, contrary to him, or to control him. The fact that these ideas flatter the male ego should be a red flag. 

While there are a number of disputable translations of this verse, the undisputable fact remains that man’s rule over woman is only mentioned in the context of consequences for sin. The meaning of teshuqa, translated “desire” in most modern versions, was rendered “turn” in early Bible translations, which carries the idea that the woman is turning away (from God) toward her husband. Instead of living in the light of God’s image and provision, her true identity would be obscured by the man’s perspective of her. In this way, all of humanity would be thrown out of orbit from the Creator’s original design. (143-145, 193-198, 227)

6.  The Old Testament provides an extensive record of the consequences of male domination/female oppression and the failure of the law to redeem this fallen dynamic.

The entire Bible is written from the perspective of a male-dominant culture, and the Old Testament stories, laws, and values clearly reflect this imbalance. Gender injustice is indelibly written into the biblical account. The Mosaic Law was given, not as a moral ideal, but to provide a check on human depravity and prevent a nation from further moral decline. Thus, it serves as a record of God’s attempts to soften the effects of female oppression. However, as Paul explains in Romans 7-8, the law was powerless to convert the human soul and set people free from their sinful nature. What the law could not do, God did by sending his own Son in human form to provide a sin offering and enable believers to live by the Spirit rather than the flesh (Rom. 7:14-8:17). (145-154)

7.  Because the Song of Songs is written in a polygamous context, it does not reflect God’s design for romance and is never referenced in the New Testament as a depiction of Christian marriage.

Regardless of whether Solomon is the author of the Song or it is simply dedicated to him, he is repeatedly mentioned throughout the book, along with his harem (6:8-9). Given women’s inferior status, Jewish rabbis would not have viewed Solomon’s polygamy as immoral, and thus, the Song is revered as a sacred allegory of God’s love for Israel in Jewish redemptive history. 

However, there is no period of human history when a polygamous marriage could have produced a love relationship that reflected God’s good design because such an arrangement fundamentally violates female personhood and the marriage principles established in Genesis 2:24. Though mutual passion is beautifully depicted in the Song, to interpret it as a biblical ideal for marital intimacy requires the reader to either minimize its connection to Solomon or to reinvent him. It also requires that we ignore the harem of enslaved women and the degradation imposed on a wife in such a situation. In doing so, we turn our backs on this evil practice and promote the tolerance on which double sexual standards thrive. (199-203)

8.  Though the Mosaic Law regulated and allowed for a double sexual standard,Malachi 2:13-16 is the first reference in Scripture to leveling the definition of adultery and holding men responsible for being unfaithful to their wives. 

Rather than confronting husbands for taking another man’s wife or marrying foreign women, God targets their infidelity to the “wife of your youth” and violation of the marriage covenant, which is based on his decree for the husband to join himself to his wife in a loyal bond. Malachi 2:15 speaks of God’s desire for godly offspring to come from such a union and warns husbands not to be unfaithful because of this, which aligns with his refusal to make a covenant with Abraham through any offspring other than Sarah’s. It also shows that God has seen the injustice to women and children from men’s betrayal of their wives, and his declared hatred of divorce is addressed to husbands in this context. (210-211)

9.  The last verse of the Old Testament, Malachi 4:6, points to a future reformation affecting men’s relationship with their children, and it is reiterated in the New Testament.

Many prophecies in Scripture are fulfilled in more than one stage. Luke 1:17 links John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah and pairs the turning of fathers’ hearts to their children with turning “the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” While John was a forerunner of Christ’s first arrival, might this prophecy be fulfilled in even greater measure by anointed messengers who prepare the way for Christ’s Second Coming? 

In light of God’s rebuke to husbands in Malachi 2 and the fact that sexual brokenness often leads to absent, emotionally distant, or abusive fathers, this verse carries implications for the male/female relationship as well. Could it be pointing to the restoration of God’s original marriage covenant and healing from the damaging effects of its reversal? Might such a movement subdue the Enemy’s power in the spiritual realms (Eph. 3:10-11) against the woman and her seed and restore the gender balance and unity that God intended for human thriving? Might it also empower the church to advance Christ’s kingdom and carry out God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven,” as Jesus taught his followers to pray? (Matt. 6:10) (210-221)

___

¹ Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 92-93.

² Joy Fleming, Man and Woman in Biblical Unity: Theology from Genesis 2-3 (Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2013), Kindle,chapter 2, episode C.

³ Kaiser, et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, 96-98.