Patriarchy defined by Webster’s, “social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly: control by men of a disproportionately large share of power”. The last line generally gets the feminist culture in an uproar, however, once taken from a Biblical perspective it fits well within the bounds of God’s structure.

Christians are a different people. We should think differently from the world. Our lives should reflect the beauty of a redeemed soul from hell and the marvelous grace of God. Even in the modern-day church the role of Biblical manhood is disappearing. It is being replaced by feminism and the role of womanhood is attempting to be as equal as manhood. In no way are we saying that women are less than men, however, God has established a Biblical and Christ-honoring role for both men and women. The world has distorted that role.

I wish to look at the views and statements drawn from Doug Philips, founder of Vision Forum Ministries about the tenants of Biblical patriarchy. This confession or statement is no different than the others handed down by Christians throughout the years. It’s not infallible or inerrant. It is simply a view that either you agree or disagree with. I want to look at these views.

First, the view of God as masculine, “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)

In the Biblical passages we have stated all of them refer to God as “He”, “Him” and “Son”. Why is there such a problem with the male influence of leadership in today’s church? Why is there such a rebellion against true Biblical manhood? Today we find the rebellion against the teaching of the scriptures to affirm the advancement of feminism. One of the most openly rebellious acts is the gender neutral Bible. There are several Bibles that reflect this such as the NRSV, NLT, CEV, CLT and NIVI.

Some notes on the gender neutral translators.

Renaming man. The name “man” is placed on both male and female, as together they constitute the human race. The translation “man” is accurate, because the Hebrew word ‘Adam is also used to refer to Adam in particular, and it is sometimes used to refer to man in distinction from woman (see Gen 2:25, “the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed”).  The English word “man” most accurately translates ‘Adam because it is the only word we have that has those same two meanings (the human race, or a male human being).  We can conclude from this usage of ‘Adam that it is not wrong, insensitive, or discourteous to use the same word to refer to male human beings in particular and to name the human race. God himself does this in his Word.

But in the NRSV the name “man” has disappeared: “so God created humankind in his image” (Gen. 1:27). And God is suddenly found to give a different name to the race: “Male and female he created them, and he…named them ‘Humankind’ when they were created” (Gen. 5:2, NRSV). (The ncv, CEV, and NIVI have “human beings” here, and the NLT has “human.”) The word “humankind” occurs 34 more times in the NRSV, replacing the word “man” with a new name for the human race.

Neutering specific men. The Greek word aner is used when an author wants to specify a man or men in distinction from a woman (or women). The word is a specifically male term that can mean “man” or “husband,” depending on the context. Surprisingly, the NRSV several times avoids translating even this word as “man” or “men.” For example, though the Greek text explicitly says that Judas Barsabbas and Silas were “leading men” sent from the Jerusalem Council, the NRSV changes this to “leaders” (Acts 15:22). Similarly, we know that only men were elders at Ephesus, so it made sense that Paul warned, “from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things,” but the NRSV neuters these men, calling them simply  “some” (Acts 20:30). And Paul himself no longer says, “When I became a man (aner), I gave up childish ways,” but “when I became an adult” (1 Cor. 13:11). (The NLT, CEV and NIVI translate all three of those verses in gender-neutral ways; the ncv does the same in two verses, but preserves “man” in 1 Cor. 13:11.)

The disappearance of the righteous man from wisdom literature. Psalm 1 begins with a description of a righteous man: “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners..but his delight is in the law of the Lord” (RSV). Here the Hebrew word for “man” is ‘ish, which ordinarily means a “man” in distinction from woman (except in some rare idiomatic constructions). The “default” sense of the word, the sense readers would attach to this word unless the context required another sense, is “man.” Psalm 1 holds up a solitary righteous man who stands against plural “sinners” as an example for all Israelites to emulate (similarly, Proverbs 31 holds up a godly woman as an example to emulate).

But this righteous man is gone from the NRSV: “Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked…but their delight is in the law of the LORD.” The NIVI similarly says, “Blessed are those…their delight…” and the NCV, CEV, and NLT do the same.

The idea is clear, Biblical manhood is not wanted in some modern Bible gender translations. The idea is to remove the Biblical manhood influence from the world as we know it today and accept feminism’s role.