5 The Implications of Scripture
We have considered the historical and legal background to the present system. We have also considered and evaluated arguments for abandoning the present system. It is now time to look at the Biblical teaching on the subject.
The Christian heritage of the United Kingdom is so deep that any study on this subject which ignored the teachings of the Bible would be superficial. There are sound constitutional reasons for examining Biblical teaching.
We begin with the coronation ritual, virtually unchanged in essentials since Edgar was crowned King of all England at Bath on the 11th of May 973. At the dictation of Archbishop Dunstan, he took a threefold oath:
To guard the church of God
To forbid Violence and Wrong
And to keep Justice, Judgment and Mercy. 38
After this, the king was anointed and then crowned. The act of anointing King Edgar, an outward sign for all present of God’s grace given to him, was considered even more important than his coronation, because it set him apart from other princes and consecrated him to rule under the authority of God. The anointing, modelled on the anointing of king Solomon by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet, is an unbroken tradition which extends to our own day.
During her coronation on 2nd June 1953, and before she was anointed and crowned, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth was asked by the Archbishop, among other things: ‘Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?’ And the Queen replied: ‘All this I solemnly promise to do.’
Next, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland presented the Bible to the Queen. Between them, the Archbishop and Moderator said to her:
‘Our gracious Queen: to keep your majesty ever mindful of the Law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this book, the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; these are the lively oracles of God.’
The Archbishop told Her Majesty when she was given the Orb: ‘Receive this Orb set under the Cross, and remember that the whole world is subject to the Power and Empire of Christ our Redeemer.’
The Christian Constitution of the United Kingdom could not be clearer. Her Majesty’s Government derive their authority solely from Christ the Redeemer. They may govern only according to the justice of God, and must legislate according to the sense of the Laws found in the most valuable book in the world.
In view of the strength of Christian emphasis and symbolism in the coronation it would be remiss if the debate concerning the order of succession of the crown itself occurred without reference to the Holy Scriptures.
It is appropriate, therefore, that we turn to consider the Biblical understanding of descent and inheritance, upon which our rules of succession are based.
The Genesis creation account
It is common practice throughout the world for children to bear the surname of their father rather than that of their mother. The practice is as old as creation itself, and it conveys the idea that something of value is transmitted with a father’s name. Passing the family surname from father to son indicates a link in society with the Biblical standards of Almighty God. These same standards are in opposition to an egalitarian view of gender within the monarchy.
The following verses from Genesis 2:23-24 show that the custom of transmitting the family name from father to son is indeed a Biblical practice, although our English translations do not quite impart the proper sense:
‘And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman [Hebrew = Ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [Ish]. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’ (Genesis 2:23-24)
Writing about this passage in his book Reforming Marriage, Douglas Wilson explains it as follows:
‘As verse 24 shows, Adam and Ishshah were a paradigmatic couple. … So in this passage of Genesis, we are taught that Adam’s reception of the woman, and his naming of her, were to be a pattern for all marriages to come. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother … ” Adam gave his wife two names. The first was Ishshah, or Woman, because she was taken out of man. The second was Chavvah – life-bearer, or as we say it in English, “Eve”. “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve [Chavvah], because she was the mother of all living” (Gen. 3:20).
‘In both passages where she is named, it is clearly stated that her two names reveal truth about her. The first reveals her dependence upon man – she was taken out of man. The second reveals man’s dependence upon her – every man since is her son. Millennia later, the apostle Paul teaches us that we are continually to remember these two truths in our marriages. Every wife is an Ishshah, and each wife is a Chavvah. Each is Woman, and each is Eve. …
‘God is the one who called our first parents by the collective name Adam. Now Adam is also a generic term for man or mankind. This shows clearly the biblical practice of including women under such a description. Our English use of the generic man and mankind follows this biblical example exactly. Far from being insulting to women, as feminists want to maintain, it reflects a biblical pattern of thought. The feminist reaction to this, and their rejection of taking a new last name (in order to keep their father’s name!), is not just a small bit of modern silliness. It is a fundamental rebellion against God. So when our Susan Miller becomes Mrs. Robert Carter it is not just something we do.’ 39
The egalitarianism that animates most of the criticism of male primogeniture assumes that because men and women are equal in value and human nature they also ought to be equal in respect to their functions and tasks. However, the fact that the first husband had the authority to name his wife (a custom preserved through the wife adopting her husband’s surname) reveals a differentiation of roles from the very beginning. If the roles and functions of men and women are equivalent, as the philosophy of egalitarianism claims, then a woman would have just as much reason to name the man as the man has for naming the woman. Such a position is refuted in the Genesis account.
Moreover, we can also infer a principle of male headship from the Genesis narrative. Bruce Ware helpfully summarized the main contours of the argument that can be made from the Genesis narrative:
‘Genesis 2 – There are at least four features of this chapter which support the idea of male-headship (i.e., male God-given authority over female). 1) The order of creation (male created first) indicates God’s design of male priority in the male/female relationship. This is also Paul’s observation both in 1 Cor. 11:8 and 1 Tim. 2:13. 2) God gives instructions to Adam, before the creation of Eve, not to eat fruit of the forbidden tree (2:16-17). Implied in this is Adam’s responsibility to instruct his future wife and guard her from violating this prohibition (hence, the significance in 3:6 that the woman gave to the man “who was with her,” showing he failed to guard his wife as he should have). 3) Eve was created to be Adam’s helper. While it is true that this same Hebrew term is often used of God’s “helping” people, it is clear that Paul understands Eve’s role as helper to require that woman ought to be under the rightful authority of man (see 1 Cor. 11:9-10 – man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head’). 4) Adam’s naming of Eve indicates, in an OT cultural context, Adam’s right of authority over the one whom he named. And interestingly, Adam named his wife twice, first when she was formed from his flesh (2:23), and second after they had both sinned (3:20), indicating that his rightful authority over her continued after sin had come.
‘Genesis 3:1-7 – Eve was tempted and deceived by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit, and then gave it also to Adam. Eve, that is, sinned first. Despite this fact, God [sought] out Adam after their sin to inquire why they were hiding (3:8ff). God approach[ed] Adam, not Eve, as the one ultimately responsible for the sin. Likewise, Paul clearly teaches that the line of sin in the human race begins with Adam (Rom. 5:12ff; 1 Cor. 15:22). But he does this in full recognition of the fact that Eve sinned first (1 Tim. 2:14). Adam only rightly bears the responsibility as the head of the sinful human race, when Eve sinned first, if he is viewed by God and Paul as having authority and ultimate responsibility [for] the woman.
‘Genesis 3:16 – Sin brought about, not the beginning of a male/female relational hierarchy, but a disruption of the God-intended role of male-headship and female submission in the male-female relationship.’ 40
Some may be concerned that the acknowledgement of male leadership legitimizes a posture of male domination or superiority. David Cameron reflected this view in October 2011 when he equated gender inequality with male superiority.41 However, such an idea is undermined by the scriptural teaching on male headship. The Bible does not promote male domination or superiority, it promotes male leadership in a God-glorifying direction.
Given what we find in the Genesis account, we should reject the egalitarian reasoning being used by those who advocate absolute primogeniture. Male leadership – whether in the home or in the kingdom – is not a remnant of feudal society that needs superseding, but a custom that goes back to the very creation of man and woman. While this does not itself prove the legitimacy of male primogeniture, if we place any value on the Christian foundation of our society at all, it renders void the egalitarian presuppositions among those who oppose the present succession rules.
The inheritance of the firstborn male
The special place of the firstborn male in the eyes of the Lord is clear throughout the Bible, but especially in the first five books of Moses known as the Pentateuch. We get a sense of the importance of the firstborn in Exodus 13:
‘Thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s. And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem’. (Exodus 13:12-13)
Firstborn sons were dedicated to the service of the Lord as were the firstborn of the livestock. Originally, firstborn sons occupied the position as priest to the Lord, although later this vocation was taken over by the Levites (Numbers 3:40-51). Even after this, however, the firstborn continued to play an important spiritual role within ancient Israel. The firstborn male received a double portion of his father’s inheritance (Deut. 21:17) and seems to have had certain responsibilities towards latter-born brothers. The firstborn son was also the one who normally inherited his father’s position as head of the family. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 makes a specific point of protecting the inheritance rights of the firstborn male in cases where a man might be tempted to neglect them:
‘If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.’ (Deut. 21:1517)
The inheritance of daughters
We have seen that the inheritance privileges of the firstborn could not be interfered with on a whim. We might ask what would happen in cases where a man died without leaving male issue. This question is directly addressed. In Numbers 27:8-11, the Lord made provision for the inheritance to pass to daughters in cases where a man died without male issue.
‘And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.’ (Numbers 27:8-11)
The key words are in verse eight: ‘If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter.’ This is the principle behind our present system of male primogeniture. Daughters may and do inherit the crown if the reigning monarch dies leaving no sons.
The leadership of Deborah (Judges 4 & 5) shows moreover that women can step up to leadership positions when no man is available or willing. The Biblical record does not rule out female leadership. It simply states a preference that a man should do the job, which is exactly the basis of our rules of succession. This Biblical basis undermines those who suggest that male primogeniture is wrong in itself, or that it is merely the remnant of European feudalism.
Heeding the wisdom of tradition
The ancient book of Proverbs cautions against overturning established customs to keep pace with the latest fashions. Consider the following verses:
‘Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.’ Proverbs 22:28
‘My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?’ Proverbs 24:21-22
We learn from Proverbs that there is wisdom in listening to the inherited wisdom of our ancestors – wisdom which has been accumulated over many centuries. This does not mean that merely because a practice is rooted in tradition that it is therefore legitimate. To maintain such would be to merely reverse the same type of chronological snobbery behind the proposal to change the rules of succession. But it does suggest caution in listening to those who are ‘given to change’.
This was a point articulated masterfully by Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. 42 In this work, Burke showed that only by reverencing our ancestors can true freedom be preserved. This is because liberty is not a natural right of man but the product of tradition, family, and faith. To support this notion of liberty as an inheritance, Burke pointed to the great freedoms of the British tradition, showing that they had accumulated over a period stretching back to the Declaration of Rights, the Magna Carta and the entire network of common law freedoms preserved by the hereditary monarchy. He warned that the legacy of these liberties would not long abide a generation that was willing to cast off the heritage of their ancestors. At the same time, Burke did not advocate a static traditionalism; however, whenever he wished to reform, it was with caution and in order to conserve. 43
If Burke had lived long enough to see our own age, his pen, or keyboard, would be working overtime. Common law foundations that have been transmitted to us by our ancestors are under constant attack. The campaign against male primogeniture is only one example of our leaders ‘given to change.’
In the last part of the 20th century and early 21st century, Government pared down our common law freedoms at an astonishing rate, including the right not to be punished until a court has decided that the law has been broken, the right to private communication, the right to trial by jury, the right to silence, the right to demonstrate and protest, the right to travel without surveillance and the presumption of innocence. 44
At this time of writing, the Government are trying to change the definition of marriage, while attempting to continue what has been described as ‘sweep[ing] away centuries of tradition’ 45 by further changes to the House of Lords. Like the changes to the crown, none of these measures was mandated by the electorate.
The antidote to such tendencies are the verses cited above. Proverbs 22:28 enjoins us not to remove the ancient landmark set by our fathers. Some translations refer to this as a boundary stone’, bringing to mind the image of a person trying to increase his property through dishonest manipulation. However, more is at stake in this verse than mere property rights, a point made by Duane Garrett in his commentary on Proverbs with particular relevance to our the situation today:
‘To move a boundary stone was to attempt to seize land furtively. More is involved here, however, than real property. The boundary stone represented the ancient constitution of Israel, and to violate that constitutional heritage was to undermine the distinctive character of the land in Israelite society.’ 46
