Cool Classical Quotes - The Lord and His Armies at the Siege of Jerusalem?

Two cornerstone historians of antiquity - Cornelius Tacitus and Titus Flavius Josephus (aka Yosef ben Matityahu) - record some fascinating supernatural events from before and during the Siege of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Both lived in the 1st century A.D. and wrote shortly after the event (Tacitus in the early 100s, Josephus less than a decade after the event), making their joint testimony highly significant.

Seams in the Seamless Garment

Of all the post-enlightenment heresies to afflict the Church, Seamless Garment "theology" is among the most pathetic. Its' one thing for an idea to be heresy; its wrong and must be crushed. But its' special when a hersy is just... weak. As in, the very meat of the heresy only stands with a backbone of gelatin. This is the case with Seamless Garment "theology" in two ways.

BUT FIRST, I'll define this belief for those who don't know of it (by name, at least). National Catholic Register - a Catholic news/opinion site that very much supports it - defines the Seamless Garment as follows:

The Church proposes what is called a “consistent ethic of life”.  It must, of course, do so because it is bound by sacred tradition to the proposition that all human beings, without any exception whatsoever, are made in the image and likeness of God and that Jesus Christ died for all human beings, without any exception whatsoever.  Therefore each human person—without any exception whatsoever—is sacred and is the only creature that God wills for its own sake. [I]

Like many heresies, this doesn't sound all too bad, and it even sounds orthodox. But also like many heresies, the Devil is (literally) in the details. The last sentence, that "each human person - without any exception whatsoever - is sacred..." is applied to mean that the death penalty is not to be exercised except for when it is absolutely necessary for the physical protection of the community. This is more or less a softer version of the argument, made popular by Pope John Paul II (JPII), who coined the "Seamless Garment" ethic. But it has grown more aggressively anti-death penalty since the article was published (2014). In 2017, Pope Francis made a change to catechism 2267, the section on the death penalty. The reading replaced by Francis was itself a replacement by JPII that established the Seamless Garment foothold on the death penalty, saying:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." [II]

Again, this itself is a revision of the earlier teaching, specifically from the 16th century Catechism of the Council of Trent, which affirmed a straightforward right of the state to execute murderers, going as far as to say that such is "an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder." [III]

But according to Francis, JPII's garment wasn't so seamless. So he felt the need to revise it once again, strengthening the immorality of the death penalty in absolute terms:

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [IV]

Francis clearly had in mind a more blunt moral condemnation of the death penalty, otherwise he wouldn't have felt a need to revise JPII's revision. The second half in particular makes the immorality of the death penalty more explicit, and Francis makes obvious what JPII made implicit, that use of the death penalty as a societal defence is no longer necessary.

So now you should have a decent idea of the Seamless Garment case against the death penalty. Now we will see why I titled this post "Seams in the Seamless Garment".

A Thorn in Rome's Side - Scripture

Unfortunately for Francis et al, there is one passage of scripture that is particularly damning of Seamless Garment ethics, that being Genesis 9:5 - 6:

וְאַךְ אֶת-דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ, מִיַּד כָּל-חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ; וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם, מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו--אֶדְרֹשׁ, אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם

שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ: כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם

And even your blood for your lives I will require, from the hand of every living thing I will require it. And from the hand of man, from the hand of a man's brother, I will require the life of man.

Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. For in His image did God make man.

A very clear command in verse 5, followed by a pretty based chiasm [V] in verse 6. And I can attest to it being just as clear in the Hebrew (and the Septuagint Greek [VI]) as it is in English versions. It is important to include verse 5 as well because most tend to only debate verse 6, being the clearer (and cooler) portion of the passage. And this is how some scholars can argue that God didn't give a "command" to execute murderers per say, but gave some vague poetic saying emphasizing the seriousness of murder. Of course, when we include verse 5, we have a very clear, non-poetic command. The incredibly fundamental nature of the command must also be mentioned. First, this is a command given to all of post-flood mankind before the larger body of statutes were given to Moses. Second, it is presented just after God gave the extremely basic and universal right to eat meat. Death for murderers appears as normative as eating meat.

So what issue does this pose for the Seamless Garment? Most obviously, it denies the very premise that because all humans are made in the image of God, all killing is wrong unless it is practically necessary at specific moments and time periods for the safety of the community. But here, the scriptures not only prescribe death for such practical situations, but for spiritual and moral reasons too, as shown in Genesis 9:6b. Now, citing various crimes that warranted death in the legal codes of Israel would open up a separate "but Christ abolished the Law!" tangent . Silly and unbiblical as that opinion is, we can cut this all out by appealing to a command so fundamental that it was given beside the right to merely eat meat.

So, like many Roman doctrines, the scriptures present a major defeater to the Seamless Garment. But in like fashion, Roman apologists have interpretive wands stuffed up their sleeves for situations just like this.

One of easiest and more common magic tricks they employ is scholarly obfuscation. That is, dump a dozen quotes from scholars who disagree on a passage's interpretation, and then declare (if only implicitly) that because some scholars are in disagreement on interpretation, any argument for a definitive interpretation should be disregarded. This is how Roman apologist David Armstrong responds to the passage, in his own response [VII] to Edward Feser's use of Genesis 9:5 - 6 in his excellent book "By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment". Rather than actually address Feser's arguments for the historical, mainstream interpretation of the passage (David himself admits he doesn't intend to argue interpretation), he just quote dumps a bunch of scholars who say "this means X" or "there is disagreement". That's it. He just shrugs and says "Well scholars X and Y think Genesis 9:6 is proverbial, not binding".

Without giving even a minor argument for why we should believe their claims (again, intentional on David's part), he turns around and says that these interpretations that avoid supporting the death penalty are "possible" and "plausible". But why? Why should I believe these are even "possible" or "plausible", let alone true? I, and Feser, don't care about what's theoretically possible, but what actually is. That is, don't obfuscate with a thousand opinions ala the Talmud, but give us answers. Until you give us an actual argument that demonstrates a better interpretation for the passage, then I see no reason to dump my current, well-argued position.

Armstrong does more than what many Roman apologists do and actually addresses the elephant that is Genesis 9:5 - 6. I've argued about the death penalty on a couple of occasions with my traditionalist Catholic friends trying to defend this Seamless Garment teaching, and when I raised Genesis 9:5 - 6, both times they didn't know of the passage and were either stumped or had to gish gallop around it.

I could write more on this, but I don't think it is necessary, and this was only meant to be a short writeup. A basic knowledge of scripture is enough to refute many heresies, including the Seamless Garment. And in a massive show of irony, God's command in Genesis 9 proves that death for murder actually values life even more so than the Seamless Garment position. That one must be put to death for killing even a lowly peasant shows how valuable life is, how ultimate its value is. It has always been a basic assumption of law that the more severe a crime, the more severe the punishment. This is why assault gives you more jail time than petty theft, or rape more than public defecation. How much more valuable must life be that to take it warrants death, the ultimate punishment?

~~~

I - Seamless Garment article, by Mark Shea
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/the-seamless-garment-what-it-is-and-isn-t

II - JPII's catechism (death penalty: 2267)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

III - Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Fifth Commandment
http://www.catholicsociety.com/documents/Catechism_of_the_Council%20of_Trent.pdf

IV - Francis's 2017 revision to Catechism 2267
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html

V - "A chiasm (also called a chiasmus) is a literary device in which a sequence of ideas is presented and then repeated in reverse order."
https://www.gotquestions.org/chiasm-chiastic.html

VI - καὶ γὰρ τὸ ὑμέτερον αἷμα τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν ἐκζητήσω, ἐκ χειρὸς πάντων τῶν θηρίων ἐκζητήσω αὐτὸ καὶ ἐκ χειρὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀδελφοῦ ἐκζητήσω τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 

ὁ ἐκχέων αἷμα ἀνθρώπου ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ ἐκχυθήσεται, ὅτι ἐν εἰκόνι θεοῦ ἐποίησα τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

VII - Armstrong's article
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/12/genesis-96-capital-punishment-contra-ed-feser.html

Cool Classical Quotes - Paul and Peter's Martyrdom AND GRAVESTONES

"Thus Nero, publicly announcing himself as the chief enemy of God, was led on in his fury to slaughter the apostles. Paul is therefore said to have been beheaded at Rome and Peter to have been crucified under him. And this account is confirmed by the fact that the names of Peter and Paul still remain in the cemeteries of that city even to this day. But likewise, a certain ecclesiastical writer, Caius by name, who was born about the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, disputing with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian sect, gave the following statement respecting the places where the earthly tabernacles of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 

"I can show," said he, "the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican, or to the Ostian road, you will find the trophies of those who have laid the foundation of this church. And that both suffered martyrdom about the same time, Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, bears the following testimony, in his discourse addressed to the Romans. 'Thus, likewise you, by means of this admonition, have mingled the flourishing seed that had been planted by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of these having planted us at Corinth, likewise instructed us; and having in like manner taught in Italy, they suffered martyrdom about the same time.'"

This testimony I have added in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed."

~ Eusebius of Caesaria, Ecclesiastical History. Book II, Chapter 25, Sections 5 - 8. [I]

Greek Text

Ταύτῃ γοῦν οὗτος, θεομάχος ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα πρῶτος ἀνακηρυχθείς, ἐπὶ τὰς κατὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐπήρθη σφαγάς. Παῦλος δὴ οὖν ἐπ̓ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτμηθῆναι καὶ Πέτρος ὡσαύτως ἀνασκολοπισθῆναι κατ̓ αὐτὸν ἱστοροῦνται, καὶ πιστοῦταί γε τὴν ἱστορίαν ἡ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου εἰς δεῦρο κρατήσασα ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτόθι κοιμητηρίων πρόσρησις, οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον καὶ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς ἀνήρ, Γάϊος ὄνομα, κατὰ Ζεφυρῖνον Ῥωμαίων γεγονὼς ἐπίσκοπον: ὃς δὴ Πρόκλῳ τῆς κατὰ Φρύγας προϊσταμένῳ γνώμης ἐγγράφως διαλεχθείς, αὐτὰ δὴ ταῦτα περὶ τῶν τόπων, ἔνθα τῶν εἰρημένων ἀποστόλων τὰ ἱερὰ σκηνώματα κατατέθειται, φησίν: 

‘Ἐγὼ δὲ τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔχω δεῖξαι. ἐὰν γὰρ θελήσῃς ἀπελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸν Βασικανὸν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν Ὠστίαν, εὑρήσεις τὰ τρόπαια τῶν ταύτην ἱδρυσαμένων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Ὡς δὲ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν ἄμφω καιρὸν ἐμαρτύρησαν, Κορινθίων ἐπίσκοπος Διονύσιος ἐγγράφως Ῥωμαίοις ὁμιλῶν, ὧδε παρίστησιν ‘ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων συνεκεράσατε. καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἰταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρόν.’’ 

Καὶ ταῦτα δέ, ὡς ἂν ἔτι μᾶλλον πιστωθείη τὰ τῆς ἱστορίας. [II]

~~~

I - Translation used:
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Complete and Unabridged. New Updated Edition, Hendrickson Publishers, 2018. Book II, Chapter 25, Sections 5 - 8; pg. 63.
I would have translated it myself but it's a big passage and my time is limited these days. I also added a few commas in the English for smoother reading (one after Nero, another after Dionysius, and another after Corinth in "bishop of Corinth).

II - Greek text from Perseus Digital Library
Link to Section 5 (other sections/chapters/books can be viewed through divisions at the top of the page): 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0640%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D25%3Asection%3D5
Greek sections were reformatted in order to make a coherent single passage.

Infallibility - a canon without ammo

Good blogs have regular smaller posts with brief arguments and conversation starters, not necessarily flooded with footnotes. So, expect more like this on the regular, every week.

It's popular among many lay and some professional Catholic apologists to argue that Papal/Magisterial Infallibility is more likely or even necessary because such is needed to gain absolute doctrinal certainty, and thus prevent the constant splits of Protestant denominations. Often this is said only with respect to more 'obscure' passages, but other times it is said for all scriptures. My response will be relevant to both.

Now, maybe, MAYBE the Catholic would have a point, if the Roman Catholic Church had an infallibly proclaimed edition, translation, and commentary of the scriptures. Not merely approved, but infallibly so, since, after all, something must be infallible to be certain. So, do they? Well, no.

First, on not having an infallible edition. Don't mistake this for not having an infallibly proclaimed canon. They do, being declared by the Council of Trent; an Ecumenical Council, and so, according to Catholics, binding on the faithful, infallible. And if this declaration is infallible, then it simply can't be changed. And so far, they haven't, so first point goes to the RCC.

But there isn't an infallibly proclaimed edition of the Bible; that is, an exact version of the canonical texts. Protestant apologist TurretinFan has argued that Trent also defined a specific edition [I], which would basically demolish Magisterial infallibility, since we know now that the Vulgate has issues, and the RCC itself has revised its official Bible multiple times, eventually ditching the Vulgate altogether with the aptly named Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate) in 1979, which is basically Nestle-Aland 26 (a modern[ist] critical text) translated into Latin. However, Barrett Turner at Called to Communion has argued that the specific edition called for at Trent was done so as a "juridical" and non-infallible measure [II]. Having read his sources and while still reading the full sources from Trent, I lean towards Barrett's conclusion, although I see potential defeaters that may, in fact, prove an "infallibly" proclaimed edition, and by extension, an error by an allegedly infallible council. So far, however, I believe the RCC has not taken an infallible stance on an exact text of the scriptures.

But that right there is a problem, at least for the "we need infallibility" argument. If the Church can't even infallibly decide on the very text of the scriptures themselves, what use are they to infallibly decide on the peculiarities of interpreting scripture? How can they even be trusted to make infallible decisions on the very thing they can't infallibly define with exactitude?

And these aren't just quibbles on spelling or syntax differences; entire Gospel accounts like Mark's resurrection account (Mk. 16:9 - 20) and the incident of the adulteress (known as the Pericope Adulterae, Jn. 7:53 - 8:11) live or die depending on your text critical opinions, among many other differences that change the meanings of many passages. Entire doctrines are affected depending on your manuscript philosophy, both in the Old and the New Testament (for the often under-appreciated doctrinal significance of textual variants in the NT, I highly recommend a perusal of Pastor James Snapp Jr.'s blog [III]. He is - in my and some others' opinions - the smartest and most thorough text critic alive).

But arguably worse than no infallibly-approved text base is the lack of infallibly-approved translation or commentary. A translation is effectively a mini-commentary on the scriptures, since you have to make doctrinally significant judgement calls at many, many points. For example, does αὐθεντέω in 1 Timothy 2:12 [IV] mean "to exercise authority", or "to take authority", or "to domineer", or any number of other suggested translations? The sense you choose for the word - neutral or negative connotation, ingressive or non-ingressive sense - decides whether the passage condemns women pastors or merely the abuse of leadership by women (among other interpretations). And I know from experience that this passage is a go-to prooftext for traditional Catholics in opposing female priests, so this is no small matter. And this is the case for countless other words and passages.

Then you still need a commentary proper. Both before and after translation, many passages need further explanation. By and large, most interdenominational debates occur on this level, even more than translation debates in my experience (although they often occur hand in hand). Among the most obvious examples would be Romans 8 - 9; are all people pre-destined to salvation and damnation? Or is Paul just emphasising God's sovereignty but without contradicting human will in accepting salvation? 

So, where is the infallibly proclaimed commentary on scriptures? Where can I go to get a definitive, unequivocal answer to the many debated passages like Romans 8 - 9? I know of a few Catholic Study Bibles, but none with a Papal Bull printed in the underside, let alone one with "Ex Cathedra" stamped on the edge.

All of this to say; what is the use of infallibility? You (allegedly) have absolute certainty on a small handful of issues and passages. Fantastic, how about the rest? Where are the infallible interpretations on the countless passages that helped create the "FoUrTy ThOuSaNd" denominations you beat us over the head with? Finally, what is your infallibility doing about the modernist scourge in your Church? And outright heretics (even by Protestant standards) like "Father" James Martin? Where was your infallibility when Christendom split in half in 1054, and when your remnant split again in the 16th century?

Papal infallibility is, in the end, a canon (pun intended) without ammo. But if not infallibility, then what? How can we maintain certainty without an infallible guide? We use our eyes, ears, and brains, as God assumed Israel would when he gave Moses the Law, without any infallible interpreter beyond direct, one-off prophetic revelations, and only at rare intervals at that. And when Israel strayed on multiple occasions, including in the NT period, did God finally say "right, thats it, you need a Pope"? No, he said "Read your Bible" , and do so at the expense of a contradicting magisterium (Matt. 15:1 - 9). Will there be disagreement on interpretation? Yes. So what do we do? We do what Christ, Paul, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers did; we investigate the scriptures for the correct interpretation.

Don't let Catholic apologists make obscure what God made for clarity.

~~~

I - TurretinFan, Calvin, Trent, and the Vulgate: Responding to Barrett Turner. 
https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/calvin-trent-and-vulgate-responding-to.html

II - Barrett Turner, Calvin, Trent, and the Vulgate: Misinterpreting the Fourth Session. 
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/calvin-trent-and-the-vulgate-misinterpreting-the-fourth-session/

III - http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/

IV - "But I am not permitting a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority upon a man."

Biblical Inequality and Historical Patriarchy

In this 3rd part of the series, we telescope to the wider scriptures and see how they compliment, not contradict their wider contexts. Specifically, that the scriptures help qualify and refine the patriarchy of their world into a truly sanctified patriarchy, not reject it.

But first, a word on egalitarian exegesis. I wish to tackle this now because how the debate is framed here is key to one's conclusions.

So often the debate is framed as complementarians/traditionalists having the burden of proof; we have to prove the gender hierarchy, we have to prove God-ordained gender roles. Egalitarians love the argument from silence; it's their best evidence.

A textbook example of this comes from Andrew Bartlett's "Men and Women in Christ". CBMW recently published their own pretty decent critique of the book, so go check that out [I].

Bartlett assumes the default of egalitarianism in scripture, that without direct "laws" to the contrary, Old Testament morality is generally consistent with egalitarianism:

There is no Old Testament law which says that a wife must obey her husband. Nor does the Old Testament establish such a law through its narratives. In the story related in 1 Samuel 25 Nabal refuses David's request for provisions. Nabal's wife, Abigail, flouts the foolish and dangerous position adopted by her husband and provides abundant supplies. The text presents this as a positive action.

We can search the whole of the Old Testament for a text which says that men ought to exercise authority over their wives, but we will not find it, because it is not there. The absence of any such text is consistent with our understanding that Genesis does not teach a creation principle of unilateral male authority in marriage. [II]

To the layman who reads the holy scriptures with 21st century legalist eyes, this argument is decisive. But when you consider the evidence I presented in the previous part for the assumed reality of male authority in the scriptures, we can see just how unnecessary, misleading, and dishonest this claim is. It becomes more obvious when you consider the norm of patriarchy in the world around Israel too (more on that soon).

Additionally, Bartlett's argument relies on a rigid, systematic, exhaustive view of law, which is his area of expertise. This, however, is not how Israelite law functioned, nor even the laws of their neighbours. Ancient Near-Eastern (henceforth ANE) law-codes were by no means comprehensive, and nor were they systematic or concerned with abstractions. Rather, they were lists of "case-laws", so to speak, providing examples of responses to various situations, from which rulers, judges, and the people would discern the general spirit of order and justice [III]. Israel's Law likewise operated this way, and thus didn't provide direct answers to every major question of communal life, since it didn't need to. "Law" was moreso the ruling spirit than a set of precepts (although these did exist, chiefly for ceremonies). People would live their lives, maintain order, and execute justice according to that spirit.

From this we can see that Bartlett's appeal to the lack of a "law" is both irrelevant and misleading when speaking of OT law and narrative, and he would know this if he studied the function of Ancient Near-Eastern law as much as he did ways to obscure a one sentence verse over 3 whole chapters of his book [IV].

But more still, should we at all expect any explicit statement for patriarchal norms in the Bible? What if it was just so normal in Israel's time that there was no need to mention it? That's what I aim to prove; the normative patriarchy of Israel, the Church, and the holy scriptures.

I - The Paradigm of Patriarchy

ANE civilizations universally assumed a patriarchal order without question. A paper by I. Mendelsohn's describing the particulars of ANE families gives a useful summary of ANE patriarchy:

The Near Eastern family of historical times is patriarchal in character and organization. Like the king who rules over his realm so does the pater familias dominate his household. He is, as the West Semites called him, the baal ("owner") of his wives and children. In its infancy the state fought an unceasing battle to restrict the absolute authority of the father who, within his own domain, had the physical power and the legal right to treat his wives and children as he pleased and even to dispose of them as he saw fit. The outcome of this struggle depended, as is the case in every combat, on the respective strength of the parties involved: in a strong state (as was the case in Babylonia during the periods of the Third Dynasty of Ur and the Hammurabi dynasty), the father's power was kept within limits; in a weak state (as was the case in Assyria, Syria and Palestine during the second millennium B.C.), the father's power was almost unlimited. [V]

He then provides examples from ancient law codes about the powers of husbands over wives and the regulation of such powers, especially the so-called Code of Hammurabi [VI].

Quite clear, if jarring even to pro-patriarchy types like myself, since the powers of fathers in some ancient societies clearly went beyond what God ordained. Thankfully, He set Israel apart in this regard. Victor H. Matthews gives a fine summary of the Israelite household order, particularly the assumption of patriarchy:

The household unit, or bet 'ab, was led by a dominant male, given the title of "father" (Matthews and Benjamin 1993, 7). It consisted of four or five generations, including the mother and children as well as the extended family of elderly parents and other related dependents who could not maintain an independent household of their own. ...

Tribal affiliation (matteh or shebet) was based on ties to a  founding ancestor and an association with a particular geographic region (Gen. 49:1-28; Josh. 13-19). While of some political significance, especially after the monarchy was established, the ties to a particular tribe generally were secondary to the needs and personal associations with the smaller kinship units (Block 2003, 35-36). ...

In all matters that involve the honor or interests of the family, it was the father's responsibility to represent the household. That would include when he and the other elders (heads of household) met to deal with a community issue (e.g., the "rebellious son" [Deut. 21:18-21]) or to hear a legal case dealing with the terms of a marriage contract (Deut. 22:13-19; Ruth 4:1-6). Within the household itself, he served as the arbiter of all the household's dealings and had the right to administer summary justice (Gen. 38:24-26). [VII]

The role of the founding patriarch in tribes is especially critical in reading the Hebrew scriptures, and this will be expanded on in the next section.

To sum up this first part, patriarchy was quite literally the air the Ancient Near-East breathed. Why would you need to command people to breathe? They just do it. This is why, contrary to modern wisdom, it is egalitarians who have the burden of proof, not complementarians or patriarchalists. Egalitarians have to tell us why this normative practice in Israel and the world around it is now wrong and should be worked against. Otherwise, it is only Biblical that we live as a patriarchy. And I will now demonstrate this normative, timeless approval of patriarchy in the scriptures themselves.

II - HuMankind

Knowing the patriarchal air of the ANE, we can take off the stained lenses of equality and read the scriptures clearly. The first thing we see is the inseparability of the sexes from mankind. And I say 'mankind' for this very reason; the whole race bears the name of Adam. "Humankind" is a subtle but catastrophic denial of the very ontology of our race, that we are the sons and daughters of Adam, of man, not merely the sons of a human couple. As Genesis 1:27 so succinctly puts it:

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם

Then God made man ("HaAdam") in his own image; in the image of God he created him. Male and female, he created them. [VIII]

The "human" race takes the name of Adam; he is the Patriarch, the representative of all. And for this reason, Paul says that through Adam, sin entered the world (Rom. 5:12), even though Eve technically sinned first. Not through Eve, nor both Adam and Eve, but through Adam alone came sin. He bore the responsibility as the chief representative of mankind, its first priest, and in both allowing and committing sin he doomed us all.

Another passage of interest here is Genesis 9:6, where God established murder as a capital sin. It reads:

וְאַךְ אֶת-דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ, מִיַּד כָּל-חַיָּה אֶדְרְשֶׁנּוּ; וּמִיַּד הָאָדָם, מִיַּד אִישׁ אָחִיו--אֶדְרֹשׁ, אֶת-נֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם

שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם, בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ: כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם

And even your blood for your lives I will require, from the hand of every living thing I will require it. And from the hand of man, from the hand of a man's brother, I will require the life of man.

He who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. For in His image did God make man. 

Now, this is the time of Noah, no doubt long after Adam had died. And yet, the human race bears his name. That the sin here is the shedding of the blood of haAdam - the Adam-ite, the man - is an explicit definition of the human race as descendants of Adam.

So, we find in Genesis itself that the very concept of "humanity" is gendered; it is the race of Adam, mankind. God did not form an amorphous blob and then make male and female through a grand mitosis. He made Adam first, and then Eve. The former was God's primary intention for creation, and the latter a suitable partner (Gen. 2:18).

Think back to the ANE context, particularly of founding ancestors and father-rule in the household. When we assume what the ancients assumed with respect to founding patriarchs and father rule, Adam's inherent authority over Eve and the first humans becomes crystal clear. No "law" is necessary to establish this, nor an explicit statement in Genesis.

Other than Adam and mankind, the other best example of patriarchal foundations is in Israel itself. The nation was founded by the man named "Israel", previously Jacob, and his 12 sons. We all know this, we all read the story, and watched it in TBN cartoons. But when you account for how this was a fundamental element of patriarchy in the ancient world, it becomes clear that patriarchy itself is being assumed as good and normative. The whole narrative assumes that Jacob/Israel and the fathers who come from him will lead the whole nation according to God's will, and that their descendants will be defined under the banner of their names. Israel and his sons are the authoritative heads, not them and their wives together. Gender equality is never even hinted at as part of God's plan.

III - New Covenant Patriarchy

The patriarchy of Graeco-Roman society was still very real, but later on less absolute than Israelite/Ancient Near-Eastern patriarchy with respect to wives. For example, the early form of Roman marriage called cum manu (with hand) saw the wife given over to the absolute legal authority of her husband. This, however, became exceedingly rare in the late Republic and early Empire, with women mostly remaining under their own fathers' potestas, or legal household authority [IX] in a "free" marriage called sine manu (without hand). She would then become an independent entity when her father died, but still needed a male guardian (tutor) to approve most legal and business acts [X]. Regardless, a woman's husband still held exclusive authority over his children through being the Pater Familias (father of the household), and women were all but banned from political activity and office, her primary role instead being the management of the household, as in ancient Israel. The Roman household of the late Republic and Imperial period was less starkly hierarchical between men and women compared to traditional Greek and Judean households. Regardless, as evidenced by the writings of many authors (especially Greek and Judean) on ideal family function [XI] and the rights and role of a husband in wider public activity vs women's expectations in household management, the husband was the household head and the woman was seen as under his authority (sometimes just socially, others both socially and legally).

In this still patriarchal world, the holy scriptures affirm the general attitude of wifely submission and male authority in life, with the primary given reasoning being obedience to God. The chief text on the Christian household order comes from Paul's letter to Ephesus, 5:21 - 6:9, in which he generally affirms the household order as it was in the world around him, but with foundations rooted in the marriage of Christ and his Church. 

Numerous debates on the Ephesians passage rage on today; what does κεφαλή (kephale) really mean? What does submission mean? Is it just wifely submission or 'mutual submission'? Important as these discussions may be, I believe it comes from a falsely assumed default. That is, the passage is treated as this blank slate that both sides have an equal burden to prove means what they say it means. But if you accept the ancient and good default of patriarchy within the scriptures and the world around them, then the debate is a non-starter. This passage is a sober, Christ-centered reassertion of the household hierarchy. No good reason exists to interpret it otherwise.

I will comment on a fairly common objection, one I find important to address because it comes from a false view of how Christians ought to view the works of unbelievers, particularly ancient pagans. Understanding the place of pagan thought in light of the scriptures is very important in fully grasping God's truth, chiefly through natural law [XII], which is extremely relevant for this topic (so much so I'm debating whether to make a whole essay dedicated to it). In refuting this claim, I'll kill two birds with one stone.

Some assert that Paul is merely echoing the cultural ideals of Graeco-Roman society. Others will be more specific and claim he is paralleling the assertions of pagan thinkers like Aristotle, who wrote his own "household code" in a structure identical to Paul's; men and women, parents and children, masters and slaves. Therefore, Paul was merely reaffirming cultural norms in Christian imagery, in order to ensure that the Church keeps good appearances with the wider world. But in spite of this, there was/is an egalitarian trajectory in the passage (e.g. that husbands ought to love their wives, masters ought to treat their slaves well) and in the rest of the scriptures; it just needed time to be fully fleshed out.

This argument is typically asserted through a hermeneutic (method of interpretation) called the "Redemptive" or "Redemptive-Movement" hermeneutic. It basically asserts the claim above; Paul did indeed call for wifely submission, but the scriptures point to a trajectory where that would be replaced by full equality. Not all who use the Redemptive Hermeneutic make the argument-ad-ripping off Aristotle, and this hermeneutic is effectively DOA when prior assumptions on Biblical equality are refuted (as my series has done), so I'll simply address the pagan = bad argument. For those interested, a good explanation and critique of the Redemptive Hermeneutic can be found in "Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate" by Benjamin Reaoch [XIII]

IV - Pagan man bad

First and foremost, the problem with asserting a parallel between Paul and pagans, and that Paul's command was therefore temporal, assumes without argument that the pagan is actually wrong. Truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood irrespective of who says it. For example, when Aristotle says that a man rules over his children like a king and over his wife like a republic [Bk. I, sec. 1259a], is he wrong? Or when he says the male is better fit to rule than the female [1259b], is he wrong? You can screech "sexist white men" all you want, but that doesn't challenge their claims one iota. And dare I say it, the scriptures back them up. Denying these 

What makes this claim even more unlikely is what it tells us about Paul's integrity. We are expected to believe that the same Apostle who said "I am not ashamed of the Gospel", who preached one God and Lord, plus the non-existence of all others (which more than ticked off the wider world - just ask Julian the Apostate), who was whipped repeatedly for his alleged blasphemy by the Jewish elite, and who was finally martyred for the faith, was suddenly too beta to defy current gender norms. Suffice to say, this is ridiculously unlikely. 

And Paul also tells us when what he says is either his opinion (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 7) or is based on respecting other norms (e.g. Romans 14 and meat eating). Romans 14 is actually a perfect example here because he first establishes the absolute truth, that all food is permissible to eat. Then and only then does he add the caveat of respecting others who choose to abstain from meat. Nothing even close to this happens in Ephesians 5, and features like clear analogy to Christ and the Church make universal application a certainty.

So, no, pagan man not necessarily bad; the scriptures say otherwise. Pagans may be correct at times, because the law is innate even to unbelievers (Romans 2:14  - 15). And Paul himself would, if only briefly, use the words of pagans to bolster his points (e.g. his Acts 17 sermon, against Cretans in Titus 1). Obviously, God's revelation is the chief standard by which all claims must be tested. But these claims, even by unbelievers, can in fact be tested and validated. In this case, I greatly agree and occasionally disagree with Aristotle, and even think some of his observations can bring definition to established Christian truths on the topic. 

V - Conclusion

A problem for egalitarians: if patriarchy - father rule - was a post-fall bug, why do the scriptures not only tolerate it, but assume and promote it? Not just in human society, but in God himself [XIV]? Would that not border on blasphemy on the part of Moses, Isaiah, Paul, virtually every other writer of scripture, and Christ himself? Does this not create massive problems for Biblical infallibility?

God willing, we need not even consider these disastrous implications. Rather than explain away countless passages as egalitarians have to, they can be honestly read together without games of exegetical twister, and the result is a coherent doctrine of Biblical Patriarchy.

Thank you for reading, and I pray you have been blessed by my explanation of the scriptures and history. This will be the final part of this series, and I plan to work it into a book project. For now though, I'll be focusing more on posts dedicated to individual topics, such as my more 'recent' one on Genesis 3:16. This series was for establishing the way to interpret the scriptures as a whole. I hope you found it persuasive.

~ Paul

~~~

I - CBMW review of Bartlett's book: 
https://cbmw.org/2020/06/10/fresh-light-or-less-light-a-review-of-men-and-women-in-christ/

II - Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ - Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts. Kindle edition, SPCK, 2019. Chapter 5, "Creation and Life: Genesis 1 - 3 and Beyond", Subsection "Marriage in the Old Testament".

III - See Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (2nd Edition) by John H. Walton, specifically chapter 13, "Encountering the Present: Guidelines for Life - Law and Wisdom".
Be wary of how he words his argument; he almost implies that ancient law, including Biblical law, had no legal power beyond mere suggestions. He doesn't say this, and that becomes clearer as one reads on (particularly pp. 274 - 276). He rather says that law-codes (what he calls "treatises") gave the ideal of what justice looks like, from which rulers and judges could gain insight for their own decisions. I think he goes too far in saying that the individual stipulations of the 'treatises' themselves had no prescriptive power, but that doesn't matter for this post's argument.

IV - Bartlett spends a whole 3 chapters on 1 Timothy 2:12 to disprove the traditional interpretation of the passage. It's as desperate as it sounds, and a major motivator to write my own review.

V - I. Mendelsohn, The Family in the Ancient Near East. The Biblical Archaeologist; May 1948, Vol. 11, Issue 2. Pp. 24 - 40. Pg. 40.

VI - The full code (in English) can be browsed here:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

VII - Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, John H. Walton, Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament - Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Baker Academic, 2018. Essay 52, Victor H. Matthews, "Family, Children, and Inheritance in the Biblical World", pg. 405.

VIII - Some have taken the jump from singular ("him") to plural ("them") to mean that only Adam himself was made in the image of God, not Eve, and thus men, not women, exclusively bear the image. [wrong, singular and plural are often conflated in Hebrew when speaking of collectives, e.g. exodus 3/4. Thus "him" also refers to "them".]

IX - Jane F. Gardner & Thomas Wiedemann, The Roman Household - A Sourcebook. Routledge, 1991 (digital edition by Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2001). Page 6.

X - Bruce W. Frier & Thomas A.J. McGinn, A Casebook on Roman Family Law. Oxford University Press, 2004. Chapter V, "Tutelage and the Status of Women and Children", Part B, "The Status of Women".

XI - e.g. Aristotle's household code in Book I of Politics; Plutarch in Moralia, 142e; Philo in Hypothetica: Apology for the Jews, 7.3 (a fragment preserved by Eusebius); Josephus in Against Apion, Book II, Section 25.

XII - Natural Law - the idea that what is right and just (and sometimes, what is wrong) can be deduced from the facts of nature. 
https://www.britannica.com/topic/natural-law

XIII - Benjamin Reaoch, Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate - A Complementarian Response to the Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic. P&R Publishing Company, 2012.
The book is short and an easy read, so I recommend it to anyone with interest in the topic.

XIV - See in particular section IV.