CHALLENGING ATTACKS ON BIBLICAL PATRIARCHY (1)

PATRIARCHAL CHRISTIANITY

This is a defense against an attack on Patriarchal Christianity.

Green – Full content of critic's article (as I read on 11 Jan '99 in place of the previous one which I read on 16 Dec '98). 

Blue – My defense and rebuttal

    Editor's note: A pro-polygamy writer I quoted informed me that he thought I had misrepresented his statements, which previously were on this page. Because I believe he is honest, I have removed the quotes from this page. I will be updating this page later, but will no longer quote that writer. It has also come to my attention that many polygamists believe I am lumping them all together in one huge pile on this page. I am not. This page (at his site) simply represents what I have seen of polygamists' doctrine that has been published. I realize not all polygamists will hold to the same beliefs, and it is not my intention to characterize it as such.

I am afraid that it was not just a misrepresentation, but that I consider some words and judgement were offensive and inappropriate for constructive dialogue, especially a theological one. This version seems much more amicable but the objections and misconceptions concerning patriarchal Christianity still need to be addressed. 

     One of the most popular areas of the polygamy movement is "patriarchal Christianity."

I want to refute here that "patriarchal Christianity", which is most misunderstood, is not a doctrine of polygamists. Polygamy is only one aspect and an option, so to speak, in patriarchal Christianity. There are many patriarchal Christians who are called to be monogamous and there are much more in patriarchal Christianity like Davidic leadership and other patriarchal relationships than just polygamy. To the discerning, Biblical polygamy and patriarchal Christianity are 2 very different issues. Thus it is wrong to see "patriarchal Christianity" as merely polygamy movement or as an excuse or cover-up for those who wish to be polygamous. Perhaps, it's because the critic lumps all kinds of polygamists as well as these 2 separate but related issues together that he finds his assumptions challenged. In all manifestation of God's truths, there are bound to be abuses and excesses, but despite all these, the Truth would still have to be declared. The movement is "patriarchal Christianity" not polygamy movement, which is one reason for the existence of my Biblical Patriarchy Website. Ironically, the attention is always on polygamy.

     The gist of it is this: We should live as the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) did, because their lives were the picture of godliness, and their families were the picture of familial godliness.
This is, simply put, hogwash.

Matt 4:4, But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" (NKJ). Note that when this was spoken by Jesus, there was no NT yet, which means that He was referring to the OT. Let's now see some instructions in the OT. 
Isaiah 51:2, "Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him." Gen 18:18,19 "since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? 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."  (NKJ)
There are also many other verses that clearly declare that children of Abraham would be heirs and teachers of righteousness but I am afraid the critic has not considered this.

After clarifying the difference between polygamy and patriarchal Christianity, and examining those verses above, we can agree that the patriarchs were indeed godly examples for us to follow. Thus, the critic's conclusion, calling the things of God hogwash is thoughtlessly unscriptural. I can't help but say that this judgement and attitude remind me of the following scriptures, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." (Matthew 7:,6 NKJ). In the same passage Jesus said, "with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you". Those who reject the holy things of God and the pearls of truths are liken to dogs and swine because they consider them as hogwash. This is not meant to be sarcastic. It is analogous of how the antagonists of this growing movement see God's precious truths which have been like pearls to so many others. To the Hebrew, a Gentile - unbeliever of God's truth, is likened to a "dog", and Jesus agreed with that. He called a Gentile woman a dog (Mat 15:26). He called Herod "fox"(Lk 13:32) and Paul called the Roman infiltrators "wolves" (Act 20:29). This "dog family" had entered the Church. Those that take after them continue to reject God's truth to this very day. If I were to throw a handful of diamonds into my pool of carps, they would not be eaten, because they are of no value to them.

     The epitome of godliness is not the patriarchs. It is Jesus Christ -- who, by the way, was not married while He walked the earth. The epitome of godliness is seeking ways to please God, not poring over the scriptures looking for loopholes to legitimize our fleshly lusts.
     If the patriarchs are such pictures of family life, I shudder to think about the shape of the family that patterns their lives after the patriarchs.

Does the critic imply here that it is godliness not to be married? Putting that aside, dictionary defines "epitome" as a representative or an example of a class or type. Deut 10:15 - "The LORD delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day." It's therefore correct to say that the patriarchal fathers are a representative class of chosen people that God is pleased with and to be modeled after. The critic's statements defy this. Thus they are not just theologically erroneous for they judge the patriarchs as failures in family life and are bad examples to be modeled after. This is in direct contradiction with Isa 51:2 and Gen 18:18,19 (quoted above), which state that Abraham and the household after him shall teach the world righteousness. His words also imply that patriarchal Christians, who can also be monogamists but especially the polygamists, who look to the patriarchs to learn godliness are people who do not seek to please God and are poring over the scriptures looking for loopholes to legitimize their fleshly lusts. With such I cannot agree for he is directly contradicting the scriptures. Well, at least, he, in saying ‘our fleshly lusts’ does admit that he has fleshly lusts, which he thinks is limited only to patriarchal Christians and polygamists.

Why wouldn’t such a one shudder to think of the shape of the world and the moral condition of monogamous America that has already patterned its life after the fallen Adam who presumably was a monogamist? Whom did God named righteous, Adam or Abraham? Well if Adam were a polygamist, he would get the blame too. Since the man by whom sin entered the world, Adam was a monogamist, sins were all conveniently blamed on the righteous patriarchs because they were polygamous. Such is the attitude of some should-be, must-be monogamists - blame the sins of the world on polygamy because we want to be exclusive in our marriage and if the patriarchs are polygamous, blame it on them, so that no one would dare to follow their examples to be polygamous. And clearly, such is the attitude of my critic.

The world's greatest and most intense and bloody rivalry today began in the patriarchs' families -- the struggle between the Arabs and the Israelis.

He blames the patriarchs and their descendants as the cause of war and family troubles when God attributes to them blessings and peace to all the families on earth. Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, (See also Lev 18:24-25, 20:23-24; Deut 6:18-19, 7:1-6, 9:4-5). Didn’t God repeatedly say in the scriptures that it was because of the gross evil-doings of the inhabitants of the land that He raised the Israelites to conquer and subdue it? Wouldn’t Ishmael and Esau, be partakers of the same promise if they had remained in the Patriarchs’ families (like the sons of Leah's and Rachel's maids) instead of joining forces with the pagan unbelievers? Careless thoughts and convenient blames can be doctrinally detrimental. Here we again see another instance of ungratefulness, blaming the Patriarchal fathers and their lifestyle for sin and war on earth.

The patriarchs' families were always fighting, bickering, worshiping and hiding idols, stealing each others' birthrights, attempting to murder their brothers, lying, disobeying God and various and sundry other problems.

Missing the scriptures again. Is the monogamous American society in a better condition than this? Let every man be responsible for his own sins. Money and marriages are not sinful. It's the heart of man that sins! Blaming is just not God’s way. "Patriarchal Christianity" is what God taught through the Law and the prophets, not what the people failed or succeeded in achieving. You cannot blame the Lessons (Law and Prophets) and the Teacher (God through the Patriarchs) when the Students (Jews) failed in some ways. Paul said Law is good, but man is sinful, but that does not make the Law void. Hear what Jesus says in
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 2:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

By grace one is saved, but if one thinks that he can take that grace for granted because it’s grace, he is yet not saved, for he is still an unbeliever. Know this that if there was no Law, there will be no grace, for it is through the Law that we know judgement, and through judgement, we know true mercy and grace. In truth, many Christians are keeping the Law of the conscience, which differs with cultures and persons rather than the Law of God, for they do what they feel is right in their own understanding and values and call it grace. True, they keep needing the forgiveness of God more than anybody else for they keep breaking the Law. And they keep breaking the Law because they refuse the Law that guides them. How can one exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees if he does not even arrive at the Law, like how can one arrive at 6 feet when he has not even grown to 3 feet. But those of cheap grace say they become tall without growing and by grace they are in the full stature of Christ without knowing what is in the Law and the Prophets.

"Patriarchal Christianity?" No, thanks. I'll stay with New Testament Christianity if Patriarchal Christianity is my only other choice.

Well, it’s a choice that one has to make, a western Roman Christianity or Hebraic Christianity. For example, what is one’s definition of "adultery"? That of the American and British Dictionaries or the Bible Dictionary of the Hebrews? The Hebrew definition is "a man taking another man's wife". The English dictionaries define it as "a married man taking another woman, does not matter whether she is another man's wife or single". Here is an example of the different kinds of Christianity people are living in. The Church in general is ignorantly practicing the English definition, not the Hebrew one. The one who defines the word rules the world, and this is what homosexuals are doing. Marriage will soon include man and man, woman and woman. Christians claim that they believe in Christ and there is only one Christ. Agreed. But it’s a question of the definition of the true kind of Christ one is believing and living in. One with the Hebrews as the backdrop or one with the Romans as the backdrop? In some lands, mediums call themselves Christ. Stupid as it seems, but not to the uninformed who would just like the kind of Christ that suits their culture. To the critic, let me say this, there is no choice to make, the New Testament Christianity and Patriarchal Christianity are one. One cannot have one without the other.

I maintain my stand, Christianity stamps from the Hebraic patriarchal roots that support it and if any man denies this, he is erroneous. For the sake of the readers, I reprint my definition of Biblical Patriarchy here, and I stand by it:

Biblical Patriarchy is the essence and timeless aspect of the Hebraic Roots. Biblical Patriarchy is the walk of the Biblical patriarchal fathers, where God's ways were made known in these fathers in Kingdom-principled obedience, commitment, covenant, leadership, relationships and all other aspects of life - not just on earth but in the ages to come. It is the experimental part of the abundant life that Jesus promised but few have attained. It is the universal law and life of the Spirit of God in Christ. It is the full gospel. It is not another gospel but that which the Apostles declared (compare the first sermons in the Book of Acts).

It is definitely not about the suppression of women. It is about spiritual men and women living out their lives as patriarchs and matriarchs like Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah and Rachel, all of them in their specific roles. It's not about men and women setting themselves against one another. Christ is in Biblical Patriarchy and Biblical Patriarchy is in Christ. The underlying culture and true foundation of the true gospel had long been renounced, removed and replaced with Hellenism and Romanism that gave birth to the Roman worldview of the modern culture. The present Christian Gospel is influenced by the Western European culture, and not by the Middle-Eastern culture wherein the gospel was ordained to be originated and interpreted. The truth is now twisted and denuded, yet the Church is totally oblivious of it. It must be restored!

But more importantly, rather than rail endlessly against "patriarchal Christianity," I should return to the original subject: polygamy.

But if he should come to the subject of polygamy to persistently think that it is the cause of all family evils, let me add:
The Bible says, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" 1 John 4:20
But I say to you, "If a man say, I love my neighbor, and hates his half brother, he is a liar; for if he loves not his half brother (born of same father but of a different mother) who is of his own flesh and whom he sees, how can he love his neighbor who is not of his own flesh or is not even known to him?" And I say to you, "How can a woman say she loves her neighbor who is not of her own flesh or is not even known to her if she, on her own accord, hates her sister-wife who has become her own flesh?" This is that which exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.

This debate does highlight some contrast between Greco-Roman Christianity and Patriarchal Christianity. 

 

Israel CS Lim, Jan 1999

 

RESTORATION OF BIBLICAL PATRIARCHY

HEBRAIC ROOTS OF CHRISTIANITY