5 Years with Σ Frame

Jack’s reflections on hosting Σ Frame.

Readership: Men
Theme: Special Post
Length: 1,600 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Today marks the 5-year anniversary of when I kick-started the Σ Frame blog on WordPress.  This post offers some thoughts and reflections on this journey of faith.

Sourcing Content

One thing that is unique about Σ Frame that sets it apart from the other Manosphere blogs (those that have survived) is that the topics covered here come out of three main sources which are rare to find elsewhere.

1. The Bible + The Red Pill

The juxtaposition of these two sources provides a fuller analysis of both the nature and character of God (The Bible), and the nature and character of humanity (The Red Pill).

2. Experience

Σ Frame reports the life experiences of myself and other contributing authors and corresponding readers, including the more abstract conceptions we’ve learned that only began to “click” later in life.  The other Manosphere blogs that speak from the voice of experience mostly focus on PUA experiences, and even those are getting rare now.  My point is that although this voice of experience lends credibility and specific transferrable knowledge to the purpose of the blog, the Christian experience of Masculinity that we’ve all had has not been very much Christian nor Masculine, or at least not identified as such according to what typically passes for masculinity.  It’s been a long hard journey for us to rediscover Godly Masculinity within the modern context.  It’s embarrassing for us to admit this, but it is what it is.

3. Mystical Metaphysics

By mystical metaphysics, I mean the things I’ve learned through my prayers and in my personal walk with God.  It comes from a position of wonder about the nature of creation, and of not having already attained nor of being already perfected, but of being in a continual search for applied truth and maintaining a state of learning and growth (Philippians 3:12-14).

Beginnings

I first started blogging in 2009, when blogging was relatively new and hot.  The reason I started blogging is because of the demand for my writings.

I guess it all started when my circle of friends at church was impressed by some insights I shared with them during group discussions.  People realized that what I was talking about was very important to their lives, even life changing, but they found it hard to catch on.  Several people asked me to explain some things to them in more detail.  They recognized that the nature of what I was talking about was rather complex and profound, and that they needed to learn more about it and immerse themselves in it for a while to catch on.

Within a few weeks, the number of people who were participating in the discussion went from 5 to more than 25.  They organized a weekend retreat and asked me to speak there.  Soon afterward, this turned into a small group that met every Sunday afternoon at church.  A lot of new people started coming to church just to take my class.

The pastors were uncomfortable with how popular the group became in such a short amount of time.  They couldn’t understand what I was teaching, and they thought it wasn’t primarily Christian, so they closed down the group.  Later on, after I started reading Dalrock, Donal Graeme, and Zippy Catholic, I realized that it was Christian, it just wasn’t churchian enough for their tastes.

Since we were unable to meet in a formal group at church any more, and it was inconvenient for everyone to meet somewhere outside of church, people in the group asked me to write down my ideas so that they could continue to digest the wisdom therein.  I found that blogging was a good way to share these essays with them and anyone else who might be interested.  So that was how I got started in blogging.

If readers are curious about what I was teaching, then go to the “Posts by Month” on the sidebar.  I have preserved 42 posts from the original blog; 29 posts in 2009, and 13 posts in 2010.  Most of these posts are rather long.  They’re not particularly Red Pill either.  I didn’t discover the Manosphere and take the Red Pill until 2017.  There are also two posts dated 2007.  I added these later on and listed the date on the post as the day I wrote those essays, not the day they were posted.

Within a year after these events, my first wife left me, and I lost my inspirational mojo for a while.  I didn’t post much for a long while after this time.

Early Days on WordPress

About a year into my second marriage, I stumbled across the Manosphere.  After that, lot of things fell into place in my understanding of things.  I found a renewed hope and a sense of efficacy founded on self-regulation and life-regulation that I never had before.  Soon afterwards, I felt inspired to start blogging again.

When I first started writing about Red Pill topics on WordPress (in late September 2017), I had no idea that this blog would ever become as popular as it has, or that it would ever become one of the more prominent Christian Red Pill outlets.  All I knew is that I had some things to say, what I considered common sense, IMHO, but I just wasn’t seeing anyone else write about such things.  Also, I had a lot of questions in my mind which no one was addressing.  I decided that if I studied and explored those questions in blog essays, then others interested in the same questions might stumble across my writings and leave a note about their own insights and/or discoveries in the comments.  Then I might find some answers.  I kinda expected someone to shoot me down with a “Look doofus… It’s like this…” sort of response.  This has happened a few times,* but for the most part, I found that others knew even less than I did about the topics I cover here.

* Those men who took me to task the most often were Ed Hurst, Thedeti, and NovaSeeker, and they were good enough to guide me towards a better understanding of things.

Content Transformation

My blog posts from 4-6 years ago were rife with sexualized content, which probably helped kick start the popularity of this blog.  But after writing on this subject for a while, I realized that this was a catharsis for the malingering angst from my divorce which was finalized just a couple years prior.

The next phase was to use the Red Pill to identify my blind spots, where I went wrong, and how to adjust my life strategy.  Posts written during 2018-2019 came from this angle.

1963 Jaguar Type E ‘Low Drag” coupe

A Renewed Focus on the Eternal

In 2020, the Christian Manosphere made a break from its secular compatriots.  Since that time, there has been an ever increasing focus on topics related to God, Headship, humility, mysticism, redemption, sanctification, and various other spiritual metaphysics.

Here, I’ll cite a passage from a landmark post by Adam Piggott that observed this transformation.

“The online discussions gradually morphed into a focus on how to get the girls.  This had various guises which I will not go into here.  Suffice to say that this was a stepping stone.  The various stepping stones became known as the red pill journey, of which getting the girls was the introductory stone.  But in the last couple of years the online masculinity communities have embraced Christianity to a very large extent.  Not completely, but definitely in big numbers.  The ultimate red pill as it were.

If the previous introductory step was how to get the girls, the introductory step today is totally different.  The introductory step now is Christianity because how to get the girls takes you away from Christ and towards mortal sin.  In other words, for young guys today the introductory step is different from what young guys only 10 years ago were doing.  Not completely of course, but in numbers high enough to be influential.

These days, you’ll see a lot more talk about God, Gnon, Metaphysics, and Mysticism in the Manosphere than you would ever have seen only 5 years ago.  And more importantly, it is celebrated whereas before it would often have been ridiculed.  This is a comprehensive and profound change to an online community that is large enough and influential enough that it has been the target of documentaries and studies by our cultural and spiritual enemies.”

Adam Piggott: “I will draw all men to myself.” – Jn. 12:32 (2021-12-12)  Last paragraph amplified by Jack.

Current Status

During that time (in early 2020), I took the topics in a new direction by expanding my understanding of religious-sounding words and concepts that fly right over our heads, and how these concepts are to be applied to daily living — words like covenant, defilement, glorification, humility, and most recently, redemption.

Another one of these words was sanctification, and this led into a study of how sex is related to sanctification, an association I had never heard anywhere else in my life but was impressed upon me through reading 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8.

Since then, I’ve found that there are deeper purposes for sex and marriage which are never discussed in the one place it should be stressed – the church.

To wit:

  • That sex and marriage under a structure of Headship is the primary vehicle of sanctification for a large number of individuals.
  • Headship is what brings God’s blessings, joy, peace, and presence into the home.
  • Headship is what allows children to know God while they’re growing up.

As this blog has matured, and judging by what I’ve read from other bloggers around the sphere, it looks like this blog is and will be best known, not for RP Christian marriage as I had imagined earlier, but for developing a fuller understanding of Biblical Headship and various other nuances and expressions of masculine authority.

…and this includes single / unmarried men!

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Churchianity, Collective Strength, Conflict Management, Conserving Power, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Determination, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Education, Elite Cultural Influences, Enduring Suffering, Evangelism, Faith Community, Fundamental Frame, Handling Rejection, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Identity, Introspection, Manosphere, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Failure, Models of Success, Mysticism, Online Personas, Perseverance, Personal Domain, Power, Purpose, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Sex, Sphere of Influence, Strategy, Teaching, The Power of God, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to 5 Years with Σ Frame

  1. Congratulations, blessings, and thanks for your unique, steady, and meaningful content!

    Liked by 6 people

  2. feeriker says:

    Thank you, Jack, for continuing to maintain this essential place in the virtual universe. I know I’ve said it before, but you’ve evolved to become Dalrock’s successor, whether you ever intended to assume that mantle or not. I know it’s hard work running a blog such as this one, and it must feel like an enormous responsibility, but know that what you’re doing has played and continues to play and essential role in many, many men’s lives.

    Liked by 7 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “I know I’ve said it before, but you’ve evolved to become Dalrock’s successor…”

      Agreed! Congratulations Jack on five whole years! You’re fighting “the good fight” of Faith on here with us; and more importantly, for others!

      Liked by 6 people

  3. Rock Kitaro says:

    Nice! Congratulations, Jack!

    Liked by 5 people

  4. redpillboomer says:

    — That sex and marriage under a structure of Headship is the primary vehicle of sanctification for a large number of individuals.
    — Headship is what brings God’s blessings, joy, peace, and presence into the home.
    — Headship is what allows children to know God while they’re growing up.

    Yes. I’ve spent a good part of the morning working with my 27 year old niece on moving her life forward; and when I read the above realized it is entirely inside of this framework!

    She comes from a dysfunctional background, like so many of her peers: Parents divorced when she was little, her father had custody of her and her brother until he died in a plane crash 14 years ago, her mother’s husband (step daddy) molested her as a girl, and on and on. You get the picture.

    BUT…. there’s hope for her, a lot of hope for her! Why? Because of God first and foremost, BUT also because my wife and I, her aunt and uncle, are operating inside the framework above; and it is opening up a space for her to get her life together despite all that sh!t from her past. God is good indeed!

    Liked by 3 people

  5. caterpillar345 says:

    It’s no easy feat to put out at least 3 posts per week (and sometimes as many as 5 or 6!) for at least the last 3 years! The content and discussions in the comments have been invaluable to me, especially in struggling with my faith, understanding myself better, and wrestling with how to move forward in our modern age.

    I think I started reading sometime in late 2017 or 2018 and started interacting in the comments in early 2020. I’m sure I found my way here via Free Northerner and Deep Strength.

    Thanks, Jack, for all your work and efforts. I hope you continue to find the inspiration to write!

    Liked by 5 people

  6. Pingback: Sanctified Marriage: Part 5 - Derek L. Ramsey

  7. Oscar says:

    Congratulations, Jack. Keep up the good work.

    I love that E-Type!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Derek Ramsey says:

    “…this blog is and will be best known [..] for developing a fuller understanding of Biblical Headship…”

    Since ‘headship’ is an historical anachronism and ultimately at best orthogonal to sanctification and at worst a distraction to it, I’m sure my view on the last 5 years is not nearly as overwhelmingly positive as others here, although I do appreciate that the blog has become more Christian in content and tone. But I don’t want to spoil the celebration, so carry on.

    Like

    • info says:

      I read your post on this. But loving wives isn’t submitting to her. Jesus as Head of the Church didn’t submit to us. Neither have you really disproven that Kephale in the meaning of the word and as the historical Church understood. Not only denotes Status but that status came with Authority.

      Especially given how the marriage is to be played out according to the Scriptures. Ephesians 5:22 isn’t mutual submission but the subsequent verses describe the hierarchies thereof as what submission in the Church looks like.

      Liked by 3 people

    • info says:

      Parents aren’t mutually submissive with their children. Neither slaves and masters.

      Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “But loving wives isn’t submitting to her.”

        That’s because you’ve axiomatically defined submission as strict obedience to authority, rather than allowing any connotation of giving in, cooperation, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden. In a non-military context, submitting does not necessarily imply giving up any authority or even obedience to authority.

        Paul commanded six times in Ephesians 5 for husbands to love their wives. This was indeed cultural debasement, a submissive attitude. So too are the stereotypical feminine traits of nourishing and cherishing submissive in nature.

        “Neither have you really disproven that Kephale in the meaning of the word and as the historical Church understood. Not only denotes Status but that status came with Authority.

        I don’t know what to tell you. It’s like me showing you the definition of “dog” and you saying “but you have not proven that it doesn’t mean cat.” The word did not mean authority or leader in the first century, nor did the church understand it to mean that, for that would have been an impossible anachronism. Saying otherwise is a simple error of fact.

        Head as authority is not a Koine Greek idiom. You can pick from ‘noblest part’, ‘foremost’, ‘extremity’, ‘top’, ‘source’, ‘origin’, ‘starting point’, but you can’t pick from ‘authority’ or ‘leader’. Those are invalid choices.

        “Jesus as Head of the Church didn’t submit to us.”

        ‘Head’ doesn’t mean leader or authority. If you say “Jesus as the ‘firstborn’ (or cornerstone, literally ‘head of the corner’) of the church didn’t submit to us”, you’d be wrong. Jesus served, and moreover he was first to demonstrate it, as was his prerogative as our master.

        His washing of his disciples feet was the most submissive act he could have performed. But even so, it is the church that is commanded to be mutually submissive, not God himself: “For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.”

        “Parents aren’t mutually submissive with their children. Neither slaves and masters.”

        Whether governments, masters, husbands, or parents, they do indeed submit to the requests/advice/desires of their citizens, slaves, wives, and children from time to time. Examples of each are easy to envision (e.g. Luke 11). But only among Christians is this a mandatory command and a requirement to do so out of love, sacrifice, and service.

        But let’s be precise. While adults are told to submit to each other (Ephesians 5:21-22), children are never told to submit (hypotassō) to their parents, rather they are told to obey (hypakouō) them, both father and mother. Wives (along with all members of the church) are told to submit, but they are never told to obey. Meanwhile, Peter’s commands to slaves mean that male slaves must submit to female masters.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Ramman3000,

        “Wives … are told to submit, but they are never told to obey.”

        How then do you interpret 1 Peter 3:1 and 3:5-7?

        The verb translated as “submit” in 1 Peter 3:1 and 3:5 is ὑποτασσόμεναι, a passive verb meaning to place or rank under, to be subject to, and/or to obey.

        How is it possible to be submissive and yet not obedient?

        Or do you suppose the translated definition of “obey” is too active, and therefore not passive enough to properly fit within the definition of hupotassó?

        Or maybe it does mean “obey”, but it’s just unwise to use “obey” simply because this would provoke the fleshly nature of women and incite them to rebel against the “head” (by whatever definition you choose)?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @Jack

        “Or do you suppose the translated definition of “obey” is too active, and therefore not passive enough to properly fit within the definition of hupotassó?”

        Yes. hypotassō in this context is in the middle voice. Even Deep Strength—who is decidedly in the patriarchal camp—defines it that way also:

        “Headship — submission — this the relationship between the Church and Christ, and husbands and wives. In this relationship, unlike authority-submission Christ and husband has no ability to compel obedience from Church and the wife. The husband heads/leads of the marriage ideally as commanded through love, but the wife must choose to submit to this headship. In general, the Scriptures tell the wife to submit to the husband so the relationship operates in unity. But is the wife does not submit to the husband’s headship she disrupts unity which is rebellion which is sin.”

        Moreover, regarding the last sentence, the antonym of ‘submit’ is translated thrice in the NT as ‘wild’, ‘unruly’, and ‘rebellious’, not ‘disobedient’. Wild, unruly, and rebellious wives promote disunity. The goal is unity, not power dynamics.

        “How then do you interpret 1 Peter 3:1 and 3:5-7? [..] Or maybe it does mean “obey”, but it’s just unwise to use “obey””

        Unwise, yes.

        I already wrote about 1 Peter. Just as in Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3 utilizes participles and elided verbs. Just as women are told to submit (in Ephesians 5:22), but the verb is elided, so to are men are told to submit (in 1 Peter 3:7), but the finite verb is elided. Rather than being told explicitly to submit, the husband is told indirectly. Paul and Peter are both being diplomatic, to soften the blow. So, you can make the case that wives are being told indirectly to obey their husbands, but not without acknowledging mutual submission, which is stated directly:

        “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” — 1 Peter 5:5 (KJV)

        The three times Peter uses “homoiōs” (translated “in the same way”) he does so in the context of submission: 2:13, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 5:5. Like Paul, Peter stresses unity and equality (“co-heirs”, “honor”) without denying differences (“weaker vessel”). As I previously noted of wives:

        “In instructing wives to submit and respect and husbands to love and care, he was equalizing them without completely denying or eliminating their differences.”

        Telling husbands to love, nurture, cherish, and respect their wives while being considerate, compassionate, humble, sympathetic is submissive.

        Regarding 1 Peter 2-3, how do you explain that male slaves must submit to female masters?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “…how do you explain that male slaves must submit to female masters?”

        Σ Frame: The Dominatrix Conversation (2020-7-6)

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramman3000

        And the definition of submission according to Scripture in 1 Peter 3 is that of Sarah obeying Abraham and calling him “Master”

        If wives don’t obey their Husbands. Then we aren’t obligated to obey Jesus Christ as our Head. Since he is merely Kephale by that definition also.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        @ramman3000

        In addition even as Jesus heeds our requests. He doesn’t always choose to do so. But decides according what is best.

        We obey Jesus. But Jesus doesn’t obey us. And Jesus does the will of his Father not our Will.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        @ramram3000

        I now see your point. Although I don’t think power dynamics can be avoided in our relationship with our wives. Neither is power dynamics avoided in our relationship with Jesus Christ.

        The shepherd is superior in terms of power dynamics to the sheep. And the Husband also mirrors that in a miniature. God is over us in power dynamics definitely. But I believe that there is an undercurrent of power being inherently bad that is implied.

        Yes power is dangerous and if God weren’t who he is abuse can happen. But like how King David reigned. It has been used by him for the benefit of the people.

        But we see how mutual submission is too easily to make the headship of the Husband to become a figureheadship.

        And woe betide us to fail to obey and serve the Lord Jesus Christ our master if he is merely Kephale but not to truly be obeyed. God’s Will overrules our will if there is to be disagreement. We do God’s Will. He doesn’t do our will. He decides what is best for us.

        Liked by 3 people

      • info says:

        @ramram3000,

        And the reason Exousia isn’t used I believe in regards to the Husband is that it is in contrast to the Roman Patriarch who has the power of life and death over his wife and children (Romans 13). You see that the governing Authorities bear the sword to kill the criminals.

        That’s why Kephale is used instead of Exousia. The Husband isn’t the same as the State which has the power to deal death to his Household.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “Then we aren’t obligated to obey Jesus Christ as our Head. Since he is merely Kephale by that definition also. [..] We obey Jesus. But Jesus doesn’t obey us.”

        Paul is not talking about obedience. The authority of Jesus is independent of his being head of the body. Jesus is not merely the head of the church, he also retains all authority:

        “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

        The head-body metaphor is about unity, not authority. The fact that the head cannot exist without the body indicates dependence, unity, and singular purpose. That’s the meaning of the metaphor, as seen in Ephesians 4:15–16; Colossians 1:17–18; 2:19; 1 Clement 37:5–38:1-2a; Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter 11; and Plutarch’s The Life of Pelopidas 2.1.

        And Paul confirms that the relationship between men and women is horizontal, but the relationship between God and humanity has a vertical element as well:

        “For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.”

        …and…

        “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [..] Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.”

        Humanity all are to be first among equals. We are all to be “under” each other. Jesus’ final recorded prayer on earth called for radical unity and love…

        That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

        …and Paul echoes this in Ephesians 5.

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramman3000,

        “Paul is not talking about obedience. The authority of Jesus is independent of his being head of the body. Jesus is not merely the head of the church, he also retains all authority:

        Matthew 28:18 (NASB)
        “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

        Exactly. And likewise Authority of Jesus is inherently linked to his status as Kephale.

        Colossians 2:9-10 (BSB)
        9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form. 10 And you have been made complete in Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

        The verse cannot make sense without his status being inherently linked to Authority. How can a person be head over all ruler and Authority if it is not effectual?

        Yes there is interdependence. But there is also Hierarchy.

        “Humanity all are to be first among equals. We are all to be “under” each other. Jesus’ final recorded prayer on earth called for radical unity and love…”

        So you believe Unity must involve equality? I believe that is a fallacy. We are radically united to Jesus Christ our God.

        Doesn’t mean we must be equal to Jesus Christ the Head. We are united by God via the Holy Spirit and doing his will not our will hence being united in purpose. As our Lord demonstrated by the prayer: “Not my will but your will be done” (Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42, John 6:38).

        And David is united to his Kingdom yet he is above his brothers as a King.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “And the reason Exousia isn’t used I believe in regards to the Husband is that it is in contrast to the Roman Patriarch who has the power of life and death over his wife and children. [..] That’s why Kephale is used instead of Exousia. The Husband isn’t the same as the State which has the power to deal death to his Household.”

        This is incorrect. Paul specifically uses Exousiazei, the verb form of the noun exousia, in regards to the husband and wife:

        “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority [exousiazei] over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority [exousiazei] over his own body, but the wife.”

        Paul also uses the verb again in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and uses the noun ten different times in 1 Corinthians alone.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        Related, and very well expressed with relatively few words. We error when we pretend that the OT is not instructive here:

        The Antemodernist: The Role of Women (2022-9-28)

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        @Ramram3000,

        “Despite this, they still argue that he meant leadership authority anyway because the Bible has been misinterpreted and mistranslated for around fifteen-hundred years. The idea that the church could be wrong for so long is just too great a hurdle to overcome. They’d rather embrace a lie.”

        All the Church Fathers believed this. Including those proficient in the Greek Language themselves. So I would give their words more weight then the recent innovations of the 20th and 21st Century. Which happen to correspond to all the Egalitarian secular religions of this age. Of gender equality and other desires to destroy hierarchy and authority.

        I think (Colossians 2:9-10) still supports that view. As in, it doesn’t apply to Christ and his Church specifically so it cannot be referring to unity with the body. And since the Kephale is over all rulers and Authority. Then it must be effectual.

        In addition, John Chrystostom made this Homily in regards to the Ephesians 5 passage:

        “Then after saying, The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church, he further adds, and He is the Saviour of the body. For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then the Church, that is, both husbands and wives, is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.”

        One would have to believe the true Church was buried for more than 1900 years.

        “Lastly, Gunner Q’s incredulity is not warranted. The Bible warned of the antichrist, which arose in the 4th century.”

        There is no World Emperor right now so the AntiChrist hasn’t come yet.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        “However not for the husband’s sake alone it is thus said, but for the wife’s sake also, that he cherish her as his own flesh, as Christ also the Church, and, that the wife fear her husband. He is no longer setting down the duties of love only, but what? That she fear her husband. The wife is a second authority; let not her then demand equality, for she is under the head; nor let him despise her as being in subjection, for she is the body; and if the head despise the body, it will itself also perish. But let him bring in love on his part as a counterpoise to obedience on her part. For example, let the hands and the feet, and all the rest of the members be given up for service to the head, but let the head provide for the body, seeing it contains every sense in itself. Nothing can be better than this union.”

        ~ Homily 20 on Ephesians by St John Chrystostom

        As linked above.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @info,

        “All the Church Fathers believed this. Including those proficient in the Greek Language themselves. [..] John Chrystostom made this Homily in regards to the Ephesians 5 passage.”

        This is not correct. While some church fathers did believe this, others did not, even in the 4th century when the meaning of kephale began to change.

        Chrystostom — writing in the 4th century — understood ‘head’ with respect to the authority of submission, because the word ‘submit’ carries an authoritarian connotation, not because ‘head’ carries an authoritarian connotation. It’s about context. The word ‘head’ still means firstness, even when authority is discussed. We see this in his Homily on First Corinthians:

        “For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as you say, he would not have brought forward the instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? It is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. [..] For the head is of like passions with the body and liable to the same things. What then ought we to let go, and what to accept? We should let go these particulars which I have mentioned, but accept the notion of a perfect union, and the first principle; and not even these ideas absolutely, but here also we must form a notion, as we may by ourselves, of that which is too high for us and suitable to the Godhead: for both the union is surer and the beginning more honorable.”

        Here the discussion of ‘head’ is explicitly not about rule and subjection, but is centered around unity and firstness. Moreover, Chrystostom agrees with my interpretation of Genesis 2-3:

        “Genesis 2:23 but of rule or subjection he no where made mention unto her. But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, your turning shall be to your husband. Genesis 3:16”

        And he explains why a woman is supposed to submit…

        “For with us indeed the woman is reasonably subjected to the man: since equality of honor causes contention.”

        …because equality causes contention, which disrupts unity.

        Similarly, Athanasius writes:

        “For the Son is the head, namely the beginning of all: and God is the head, namely the beginning of Christ” — de Synodis, 27.26.

        Because the Greek word for ‘head’ referred to beginning or firstness.

        Similarly, Ambrosiaster in Commentary on Paul’s Epistles wrote:

        “God is the head of Christ because he begat him; Christ is the head of the man because he created him, and the man is the head of the woman because she was taken from his side. Thus one expression has different meanings, according to the difference of person and substantive relationship.”

        Where once again ‘kephale’ refers to firstness, source, or origin.

        Cyril of Alexandria wrote the ‘head’ means archē (‘beginning’ or ‘origin’) and referenced Adam and Eve.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @info

        “There is no World Emperor right now so the AntiChrist hasn’t come yet.”

        Have you adjusted your scope for ‘world’ to the area of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, the area that the Bible’s prophecies of Daniel and John? As per Revelation 12:6:

        “The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.”

        Here 1,260 refers to prophetic days (i.e. years), as evidenced from the lack of intercalation with the literal 1290 days of Daniel 12:11–12. For 1,260 years from 395AD to the massacre of the Waldensians (1655 AD), the true church stubbornly thrived in the Alpine regions of Europe.

        The transition from Innocent X to Pope Alexander VII in 1655 marked the end of the Augustinian consensus:

        In 1644 the “Augustinian consensus concerning persecution was irreparably fractured.” — Coffey, John (2000). Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England, 1558–1689. Longman

        Where else in history can you find any human or organization that claims to speak with the full divine authority of Jesus Christ? For that is where you will find antichrist: one who falsely claims the divine authority of Christ as its own.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @ramram3000,

        I agree that Kephale directly means firstness and preeminence primarily. Talking about said status.

        You have still ignored Colossians 2:9-10. Where Kephale isn’t talking about unity here. Or mutual submission there.

        If said Kephale over every ruler and authority didn’t give our Lord Jesus command over every rule and Authority. Then it is meaningless.

        Liked by 3 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “You have still ignored Colossians 2:9-10. Where Kephale isn’t talking about unity here. Or mutual submission there.”

        Not ignored. I’m going to write up a detailed post on the topic and then link to it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @ramram3000

        Alright I will see where you are going to go with this.

        Like

      • info says:

        I have read one of your recent articles:

        “You might obey someone in higher authority, but you respect someone who is of greater status. When Paul speaks of the husband being the head of the wife, he is referring to his preeminent status. Any authority (and thus obedience) is a function of honor or respect.”

        Derek L. Ramsey: Headship: Authority or Preeminence? (2022-9-22)

        I think we might have some more similar views than we think. If said obedience and respect comes from the Kephale status of the Husband. I can accept that.

        However, I still find your egalitarian views wrong. And have reduced said status to nothing more than “Figureheadship”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        @ramman3000,

        “And yet how can there ever be love, one may say, where there is fear? It will exist there, I say, preëminently. For she that fears and reverences, loves also; and she that loves, fears and reverences him as being the head, and loves him as being a member, since the head itself is a member of the body at large. Hence he places the one in subjection, and the other in authority, that there may be peace; for where there is equal authority there can never be peace; neither where a house is a democracy, nor where all are rulers; but the ruling power must of necessity be one. ”

        ~ Homily 20 on Ephesians by St John Chrystostom

        Again. Whilst you have correctly quoted St John Chrystostom on this about the meaning of Kephale in regards to other passages. The hierarchy is still applicable.

        There isn’t equality in the Household for there must be one ruling power which is the Husband. Who will listen to the needs of his wife. But the final say is always his. Just like God has the final say in his answers to our prayers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “Whilst you have correctly quoted St John Chrystostom on this about the meaning of Kephale in regards to other passages. The hierarchy is still applicable.”

        My purpose in quoting the church patriarchs is solely to show how he understood the language, to establish that kephale was not widely understood to refer to authority, even by the 4th century. I’m not making any claims that his exegesis is correct.

        In the first century ‘submit’ (hupotassó) had connotations of authority (subject to context!), so Chrystostom’s views are nothing new and have no bearing on what ‘head’ means. Moreover, John Chrysostom wrote in the late 4th century, when the flood of doctrinal errors had commenced, as prophesied by John the Revelator:

        “And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. [..] But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.”

        The woman—the remnant of the true church—could not be destroyed by the serpent, protected by the earth in the Alpine ‘wilderness’. So for 1,260 years the serpent turned its gaze towards attacking God’s commands and the testimony of Jesus, exactly as John warned would happen.

        So no, I’m not required to accept Chrystostom’s views as dogmatic. Indeed, the Word of God compels me not to! Nevertheless, I can clearly see what he thought certain words meant without needing to agree with his interpretation re: authoritarian hierarchy.

        All I’m establishing is that the corruption of kephale occurred during or after the 4th century, corresponding to Satan’s flood of error. The axiom—held by many here— that “‘head’ must mean authority, because no error could be held popularly for 1600 years!” is a fallacy of incredulity. Whereas Jesus said…

        “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

        …and, ironically, few there be that believe this is a true statement.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @info

        “I think we might have some more similar views than we think. If said obedience and respect comes from the Kephale status of the Husband. I can accept that.”

        No, neither respect nor obedience can come from kephale status alone, or else logically a culture where wives have higher status (i.e. this one) would mean a husband receives no respect, nor obedience. He’d be respected and obeyed in a patriarchal culture like Ephesus, but in America he’d be—at best—a mere figurehead and—at worst—subservient.

        However, I still find your egalitarian views wrong. And have reduced said status to nothing more than “Figureheadship”.

        To be a figurehead, someone must have little honor, thus be deserving of little respect. This describes the current culture when men and fathers have no honor.

        But that’s not what the Bible says. Paul affirmatively instructs wives to “submit…respect” their husbands and Peter affirmatively instructs husbands to “submit…respect” their wives (as per the discussion on elided verbs and participles). This is not dependent on existing status! Paul and Peter are instructing spouses to elevate the status of their spouse and set aside their own status (if any).

        A proper Christian marriage should be dominated by mutual respect and honor.

        “There isn’t equality in the Household for there must be one ruling power which is the Husband. Who will listen to the needs of his wife. But the final say is always his.”

        In a proper Christian marriage, there is no need for a final say.

        My wife agree on major issues more than 98% of the time. 2% of the year is a week. There is no way we disagree for that amount of time per year. Yes, there is disagreement while we discuss what to do about things, but we are almost always unified in our conclusions.

        For example, a couple months ago we had to make the quick decision to split up our family again. We took less than 5 minutes to discuss it. We didn’t have the time. We came to a consensus and then we acted.

        The times when I’ve had to “break a tie” have been deeply wounding to our relationship. I almost never have to do this, and whenever I do it reflects an utter failure, not something to be proud of or commanded.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        A proper Christian marriage should be dominated by mutual respect and honor.

        “There isn’t equality in the Household for there must be one ruling power which is the Husband. Who will listen to the needs of his wife. But the final say is always his.”

        In a proper Christian marriage, there is no need for a final say.

        If you and Mrs ramman3000 have cultivated a marriage where there is NEVER a “need for a final say”, hats off to you! That is commendable beyond words. Either one or both of you are the most spiritually mature believers I have ever heard of. That’s not snark. I’m serious.

        SAM and I get on well, agree on most all major issues, hear each other out, and heveven concedes to me on things when my perspective truly carries more merit. We would say we have a proper Christian marriage and that we’ve worked hard to achieve it.

        Still, whether or not he has ultimate ranking authority is not up for debate. And on occasion, someone has to have a final say. When that happens, it is clear who has final say based on our understanding of Scripture.

        Hierarchy is a part of life. It’s not “improper”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        @elspeth

        “Hierarchy is a part of life. It’s not “improper”.”

        Sure, it is not completely avoidable. Merit is a reality, so some measure of ordering is required. This is why the Bible says:

        “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act.” — Proverbs 3:27 (NIV)

        …and again…

        Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. — Romans 13:7 (NIV)

        My wife has certain skills that she far exceeds me on, an I defer to her on those issues. I have skills that she completely defers to me on. We give due honor and respect. Most hierarchies are not based on sex, but some are: I open the jar lids and she gets crushed when we wrestle on a foam bar over a foam ball pit, despite the fact that we are nearly the same height and weight. But even the pastor in the church must defer to the lowest member, who may be given a word from God. Hierarchy has its place, but it is not primary.

        “If you and Mrs ramman3000 have cultivated a marriage where there is NEVER a “need for a final say””

        If we didn’t, our marriage could not have survived to this point.

        Three out of our five children are adopted and have special needs, including one with physical, intellectual, and extreme emotional disabilities (including aggression and violence). The level of personal stress among family members is extreme, including PTSD symptoms. We don’t have the time or emotional energy to fight each other.

        Both my wife and I need complete individual autonomy to make any snap decision required even as we need to be on the same page at all times. When one of us makes a decision, it is imperative that the other accept it, trusting that they knew what they were doing.

        When we were newly wed (before we had kids), we were deeply connected in this way, but we were not “under the gun”. Any disagreements were not so deeply felt. But all that changed when we had kids. What we have is forced.

        When my daughter had her leg amputation, we had to make a gameday decision with the doctor. We had seconds to decide on a life-changing irreversible course. We looked at each other, mumbled a few words, and made the decision. That decision deeply broke me for days, broke her for months, and broke my son, but it was the right decision and we were able to make it on the spot without debate.

        I don’t know how to express exactly what it means when you are so connected to another person that you know their will without needing to speak words and how you just submit to them completely all the time, surrendering your will. The more important the decision, the more unified (and thus mutually submissive) we are.

        Disagreements are your choice. You don’t have to disagree with your spouse and your spouse doesn’t have to disagree with you. If you do disagree, you can choose to ignore it. That’s submission.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        I don’t know how to express exactly what it means when you are so connected to another person that you know their will without needing to speak words and how you just submit to them completely all the time, surrendering your will. The more important the decision, the more unified (and thus mutually submissive) we are.

        You don’t have to explain it. I get it, because I feel we have achieved that as well. We defer based on experience and expertise and all that stuff. I make almost all of the educational decisions for our kids, for example. I choose curricula, make plans, etc. My husband defers to the time effort and study I have put into our kids individually and into what is required for them to excel at particular seasons of life.

        I’m wondering if you hear “husband is the head/authority” as some kind of dictatorial regime where the wife is not heard and loved and deferred to when the situation warrants.

        My perspective is that a two headed creature is a monstrosity. You can’t have two heads. You can have a marriage where husband and wife work together seamlessly, and truthfully, the more open and connected with each other the spouses are, the more likely that will be.

        My husband and I have been together in some way since he was 19 and I was 21. We have grown up together, matured together, have become more and more knit to each other over time. We came to marriage from parents where husband head ship was the norm and accepted as good and right, so we never had the submission fights. We have operated like Captain/ First mate pretty much from day one.

        But we’re still human beings, subject to error, sin, and occasional (thankfully VERY occasional) bouts of folly. This is when the predetermined agreement and understanding of who is in charge becomes not only essential, but useful and freeing.

        On the rare occasion when a decision had to be made and my husband made it because we were seeing things from different vantage points, that has been healing more than wounding. But I suppose that’s because we never had to hash out what the order looks like.

        That the buck doesn’t stop with me is actually a relief.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “predetermined agreement and understanding of who is in charge becomes not only essential, but useful and freeing.”

        predetermined, eh?

        Joking aside, I’m not talking about decisions that were determined ahead of time or predetermination of who was going to make a decision, things that make decision-making a rote matter.

        Deciding to amputate our daughter’s leg was the most traumatic experience I’ve ever had. It’s been more than six years and telling the tale still brings tears to my eyes. My wife questioned our decision for months after the fact. We didn’t have time to decide ahead of time, because until the doctor opened her up in the surgery room and examined her, we didn’t know what the status of her anatomy was. We were unable to predetermine a decision.

        You are framing decision-making under the assumed umbrella of authority. It is there implicitly in every line that you write, lurking. It may not be obvious, but it is always there. It may be rare that authority has to be exerted for you, but you believe that there will always be a case where it is necessary. Indeed, you say:

        “…that has been healing more than wounding. [..] That the buck doesn’t stop with me is actually a relief.”

        When you speak of healing and wounding, you’re talking about the difficulty of deciding, the relief of giving in or the difficulty in taking authority or responsibility.

        We’re not referring to the same thing. I’m talking about decision-making in the complete absence of authority. It is not a factor at all. When I have to tie break[*], it is damaging to unity and we pay both for it by experiencing disunity. Disunity cannot provide relief, that’s one indication that we are not talking about the same thing.

        [*] Where “tie-break” means we disagree going into the decision and cling to that disagreement past the point of decision.

        “My perspective is that a two headed creature is a monstrosity. You can’t have two heads.”

        I’ve frequently alluded to the fact that the head-body metaphor refers to unity, not authority.

        It makes no sense to speak of two heads in terms of authority, just as it makes no sense in terms of authority, nor multiple arms, hands, legs, and feet. But that metaphor makes perfect sense in terms of unity: many parts, one whole; equal concern, no division (1 Corinthians 12). Thus God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and man is the head of the wife. Multiple heads, but one unity (John 17:1–26).

        So long as you view submission primarily in the frame of authority, you won’t be able to primarily view submission in the frame of unity. You cannot serve two masters, you must love one and treat the other as of no consequence.

        Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        This notion, that authority undercuts unity, is a crystal clear declaration that our understandings of the very essence of unity are irreconcilable.

        Jesus was under the authority of the Father, without disruption of unity. Jesus asked the Father to let the cup pass. He asked why God had forsaken Him. He experienced real, human despair under the weight of what the Father required, but this was not at the expense of unity.

        Unity is most supremely displayed not in complete agreement because we are so connected (although that is lovely and I love it). Unity is most displayed when a wife says to her husband:

        “I trust you so much, and the hand of God on you so much, and your heart towards me so much, that I submit to your authority even when I don’t fully get it. And I’m not going to punish you, emotionally blackmail you, or wail, whine and manipulate to get my way. I’ll defer to you and still sleep with you tonight as if I were in full agreement and no difference of opinion ever happened.” I live that, by the way. It’s not just talk.

        Love and unity are most powerful when they have to be exercised, not when they don’t. But we see that fundamentally differently, and I think that just dawned on me as I read your last comment.

        This is my last word on the topic, but I thought I would be remiss if I didn’t offer an example of unity that doesn’t demand anyone pretend that there is no work involved to achieve it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        @elspeth

        “This notion, that authority undercuts unity, is a crystal clear declaration that our understandings of the very essence of unity are irreconcilable.”

        They are mutually exclusive, yes, but authority does not undercut unity, it is merely subservient to it. Authority does not come to save the day when unity fails (i.e. a tie break scenario), unity comes to save the day when authority fails.

        People cannot even comprehend what the latter means—especially in marriage—because they’ve assumed the former is true. But Jesus didn’t pray for radical authority. John didn’t write his gospel focusing on authority. Both focused on unity. The New Testament is riddled with calls for unity, but there is not a single chapter in the entire Bible where a husband is instructed to lead his wife.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        I know I said I was done, but being stuck watching the wind whip outside my window is giving me too much time to think.

        You seem to be defining unity as agreement? A couple can agree without unity and they can disagree on one point and still have unity. What you are really saying is that unity=uniformity of thought. I patently disagree with that. It’s a terrible definition.

        Even the secular dictionary offers a better definition than that. it says unity is “being unified or joined as a whole”, and I feel confident that nothing in the NT has ever seemed to indicate that unity is defined by uniformity of thought.

        You can have a difference of opinion and still be unified/joined as a whole. I would argue that insistence on uniformity of thoughts undermines that very thing you are trying to achieve, that independent autonomy (is that what you said earlier?). Being joined as a whole is best understood as agreement on the whole, big picture, on what you want to see achieved. DO we agree on the desired outcome? If so, then unity exists even if the path to that outcome needs to be hashed out.

        Keep in mind that the vast majority of couples are not going to have to decide whether to amputate the leg of a child. That’s big stuff (my heart melts at the enormity of it), and when we are having these conversations, it is helpful to -as much as possible to remember that some couples are trying to dissect this through the dailyness of life.

        If a couple is truly unified on the issue of how decisions will be made, then there is unity. Unity does not mean egalitarianism. However you try to dress it up, that’s what you are advocating, and it never works.

        But again, and I mean it, kudos for what you and the Mrs have accomplished. It’s remarkable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        What you are really saying is that unity=uniformity of thought. [..] Even the secular dictionary offers a better definition than that. it says unity is “being unified or joined as a whole”

        No, the dictionary definition is fine. Unity isn’t uniformity.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        I decided to go to what I considered the gold standard of English dictionaries, Webster’s 1828 edition. He offers four definitions for unity (uniformity among them) , but the 4th on the list reads specifically:

        In christian theology, oneness of sentiment, affection or behavior.

        Nothing about agreement. All about the heart, which I think strikes well at the Christian understanding of Unity. His number one definition reads:

        The state of being one; oneness. unity may consist of a simple substance or existing being, as the soul; but usually it consists in a close junction of particles or parts, constituting a body detached from other bodies. unity is a thing undivided itself, but separate from ever other thing.

        Again, nothing about uniformity. I submit that you’re definition of unity is incorrect, and that is why you see authority as something that destroys unity.

        Complete agreement with never a hint -ever?- of divergence that needs to be worked out? That’s borg-like uniformity. Again, the longer a marriage lasts, the more uniform the minds and hearts of the parties involved should be. I am a firm believer that if all is going well, after the first decade (barring any serious external or existential pressures), marriage should be mostly enjoyable and affectionate. That has been our experience.

        But we’re too human and flawed to have 100% uniformity of thought. We’re both opinionated and have strong thoughts about what we think we know when we think we know it. Thankfully, we agree 95% of the time. We have full agreement (unity of heart) that the husband is the head. So for us, authority does not undercut unity. It is the principle we are unified on; so much so that my saying, “We’ll go which ever direction you choose” is the ultimate expression on unity. And it’s far more efficient (not to mention more honest) than doing nothing or pretending to Fully appreciate and understand his position if I do not.

        You said, “You can choose not to disagree”. Well yeah. But that’s just submitting. You seem to think when the husband does that it’s Christlike and promotes unity, but when the wife does it out of respect for her husband’s higher status, then it’s bad, inferior, undercutting unity.

        This is not a coherent line of thought.

        Thank you Jack for your patience with me, 🙂 !

        Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “that is why you see authority as something that destroys unity”

        This is incorrect.

        “Nothing about agreement. All about the heart, which I think strikes well at the Christian understanding of Unity.”

        This is why I wrote:

        “There is a place for authority within the bounds of marital unity, but there is no place for marital authority outside the bounds of unity. If the wills of two persons are joined as one, then this may (or may not) involve some exercise of authority that honors that unity. But disunity cannot be brought back into harmony through the exercise of—or adherence to—authority. This is the error of the church, believing that unity is a function of adherence to a particular denomination—an authoritative set of beliefs, doctrines, and practices—rather than the inner state of the congregation of believers. Unity is a matter of the heart, of love.

        It is a matter of the heart, of love. Authority does not destroy unity: the lack of unity destroys authority.

        “You said, “You can choose not to disagree”. Well yeah. But that’s just submitting.”

        Precisely, I said that is submission. Choosing not to disagree is not a matter of authority, but it is submission.

        “You seem to think when the husband does that it’s Christlike and promotes unity, but when the wife does it out of respect for her husband’s higher status, then it’s bad, inferior, undercutting unity.”

        No. I don’t know why you’d think that or what I might have said that made you think this. Submission—within the bounds of unity—is where it belongs, regardless of how it happens.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        Okay, Derek. I have one more query, then I am done.

        When I said choosing not to disagree is simply submitting, you said, “Yes. That’s correct.”

        I think we’re having another semantic divergence. It seems to me that when you say “choose not to disagree”, what you’re really saying is “choose not to argue”. Lack of discussion or argument that results in defacto submission does not necessarily equal agreement and unity. It could be going along to get along and keep the peace. Husbands have perfected that one. I see them do it all. the. time.

        Choosing not to disagree, inherently implies that disagreement is present. If I fully agree, I don’t have to choose not to disagree. Submission is inherently a response to disagreement. Doing something that you already agree with and want to do is not submission.

        SO, if someone chooses not to disagree verbally, then yeah. They are submitting, but that’s not unity as you have defined it. You define unity as “agreement” but what I’m hearing is “acquiescence”. It’s outward unity for the sake of keeping peace. Fine well and good for all who are good with that.

        However, if I have a different of opinion, my husband does not want me to keep silent, and simply say I agree if I don’t. He is genuinely interested in my point of view, particularly if it’s different from his. One of the things we had to work through was my tendency to say, “Okay you’re right”, because I thought that was what I was supposed to do even if I didn’t understand why he was right. He hated the dishonesty of it.

        That’s why getting to the point where a wife’s trust in her husband is so great that she submits to him even if she doesn’t fully agree is a much more potent expression of love and unity than simply choosing not to disagree (i.e. choosing not to SAY you disagree).

        Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Okay, Derek. I have one more query, then I am done.”

        I don’t think I can quickly answer your query with a satisfactory response. I need time to consider a more thoughtful response and I have enough material here for a follow up post on my blog (if I ever get around to it). This is one of those cases where I don’t know how to best communicate at the moment, so it is better to say nothing for now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @ramram3000,

        “My wife has certain skills that she far exceeds me on, an I defer to her on those issues. I have skills that she completely defers to me on.”

        A wise King doesn’t try to be an expert on everything himself. He delegates according to ability.

        A wise King cannot be the best cook in the Kingdom necessarily. He leaves that job to the best cook he can hire.

        Nonetheless there is no contradiction between what you say and the final say of the Husband. And hence the obedience and respect ultimately owed to the Head.

        A King’s deference to others in terms of their respective spheres of expertise doesn’t diminish his status as King. Since he is the one delegating.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @ramram3000,

        “In the first century ‘submit’ (hupotassó) had connotations of authority (subject to context!), so Chrystostom’s views are nothing new and have no bearing on what ‘head’ means. Moreover, John Chrysostom wrote in the late 4th century, when the flood of doctrinal errors had commenced, as prophesied by John the Revelator.”

        If that is so. Then you should be able to quote the commentaries of earlier Church Fathers on Ephesians 5 before the 4th century contradicting the views of St John Chrystostom and also in broad Patristic consensus. For while a Father may be in error the Patristic consensus is more likely to be the result of the Holy Spirit helping with the interpretation.

        As for doctrinal errors, Tertullian for example remained quite orthodox in his time. As did St. Cyprian and others.

        And I wouldn’t exclude sex egalitarianism which existed even in that time to also be those who were in doctrinal error and in addition were gnostic I believe.

        I broadly disagree with your interpretation of Revelation. Instead it is this:

        Ichthys: The Coming Tribulation — A History of the Apocalypse

        The rise of the Anti-Christ is inherently connected with the judgments of God that commences with the unsealing of the scroll and the coming trumpet and bowl judgments.

        I don’t see sequential judgments in that era in conjunction with the coming of the Dragon and Anti-Christ.

        The Anti-Christ is a Man who actually goes and leads and army to fight Jesus Christ in His 2nd coming. And I don’t see that man existing in your interpretation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Then you should be able to quote the commentaries of earlier Church Fathers on Ephesians 5”

        I did do so with respect to kephale, which was the purpose of my word study. I have not done what I consider to be a complete word study on “hypotassō”, despite examining a number of commentaries, lexicons, grammar analyses, etc.

        My next major study on my blog is going to cover Christologies of the 1st through 3rd centuries and will include 25 different post-biblical sources. Perhaps after I complete that I will revisit ‘submission’.

        “For while a Father may be in error the Patristic consensus is more likely to be the result of the Holy Spirit helping with the interpretation.”

        The Bible is the Word of God and what it says takes priority over what anyone else says, so if there is a disagreement with the Bible and the post-biblical writers, I’m choosing the Bible every time. I validate what others say by holding it against the Standard, we don’t validate the Standard by holding it against what others say (i.e A→B, not B→A). This is the axiom of sola scriptura.

        Regardless of where the patristics land on an issue, I’m going to determine their truth or error according to what the Bible says, not based on consensus. If anything, the narrow way will usually fail to meet consensus anyway. I reject the axiom of sola ecclesia.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        @info

        “I broadly disagree with your interpretation of Revelation.”

        I recognize this fact, so let me ask some questions to clarify the issue.

        Since idolatry is the worship of something made by the hands of man, what in scripture is described as something (literally) made by the hands of man can be (figuratively) received on the forehead or the hand? With that answer, what then is the nature of the beast that demands worship of that idol, thus receiving its mark? Are you able to completely identify both the beast and its mark from scripture alone?

        The rest of our discussion is merely academic past these questions and their answers.

        “The rise of the Anti-Christ is inherently connected with the judgments of God that commences with the unsealing of the scroll and the coming trumpet and bowl judgments. [..] I don’t see sequential judgments in that era in conjunction with the coming of the Dragon and Anti-Christ.”

        This is analogous to the atheist who says “I see no evidence that God exists” even as the evidence for God is massive and everywhere. The inability to recognize the fulfillment of prophecy is a bug, not a feature. It is why for most of my life I said nothing on eschatology, for I did not yet posses a single bit of wisdom or knowledge to weigh in.

        Those in the Protestant Reformation and the Radical Reformation believed that Papal Roman Catholicism was the beast of revelation. Inquisitor Reyenerious, writing in AD 1250, attested that the Waldensians believed that the RCC was the harlot of the apocalypse. Indeed, since it’s emergence, the church at large has widely understood who the antichrist was. It has not been a secret, until apparently modern times.

        As far as the eschatological timeline, all seven seals have been opened, six of seven of the trumpets have blown, and five of seven bowls have been poured.

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramram3000,

        “I’m choosing the Bible every time. I validate what others say by holding it against the Standard, we don’t validate the Standard by holding it against what others say (i.e. A→B, not B→A). This is the axiom of sola scriptura.”

        Scripture is the rule of faith. But we know how much squid ink is used to twist scripture against what is actually said.

        The Patristics help. Should one assume that Patristic consensus especially at and before 4th century isn’t the result of the unity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that results in such a thing?

        Where is the understanding of egalitarianism (which you say is unity through love) between Men and Women especially since the Reformation by the Divines like Wycliff, Luther, and Calvin?

        Why did that revelation never come to them but your current understanding if they have the Holy Spirit in reading the Word of God?

        You have already proven the Kephale isn’t directly talking about Authority. But that Higher Status comes with as you say:

        “He’d be respected and obeyed in a patriarchal culture like Ephesus, but in America he’d be — at best — a mere figurehead and — at worst — subservient.”

        If Jesus Christ through Paul is giving such a commandment in such a cultural context initially but also to carry forward throughout history then the intention to have the effect of the Husband of being respected and obeyed.

        Jesus’ Kephale headship over all rule and Authority as I quoted from Colossians also talk about the same thing in the absence of unity with the body. Higher Status conferring overall command. Otherwise said Higher status and Preeminence over all Rule and Authority is meaningless. Just flowery words on a page.

        Your ideal of perfect unity and consensus cannot happen aside from the submission of the body to the Head. Just as we have unity in submission to Jesus Christ.

        As Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him Lord. So the Church obeys Jesus and calls him Lord or Master.

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramram3000,

        “Perhaps after I complete that I will revisit ‘submission’.”

        And so it was helpful for Peter to define that for us:

        1 Peter 3:5-6
        5 For this is how the holy women of the past adorned themselves. They put their hope in God and were submissive to their husbands, 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord. And you are her children if you do what is right and refuse to give way to fear.

        Submission = Obedience on the part of Wives to Husbands calling them “lord”.

        Clear as day.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        @info

        “I broadly disagree with your interpretation of Revelation. Instead it is this:”

        I had a chance to look over your link and there one key problem: it cannot be true, because scripture has already been fulfilled, so it cannot be that it remains to be fulfilled.

        First, the identity of the beast and its mark is already known from only scripture (and witnessed in the historical record). There is no need to rely on tradition, although nevertheless we have many centuries of tradition that support this claim.

        Second, the identity of the kings in Revelation 17:10…

        “And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.”

        …is known (Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba) and already fulfilled. It signified the end of the legs of Iron in Daniel. Tradition, not scripture, on Daniel leads to confusion as to why John’s era ends with Galba, even though Daniel says exactly what the difference between the first seven kings (Legs of Iron) is with the kings that followed (the Feet of Iron and Clay, to the strike of the stone, to the Toes of Iron and Clay) until the emergence of the little horn: the end of strict familial succession.

        “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” — Daniel 2:43

        Again, all we need to know is knowledge of scripture and the witness in the historical record. There is zero reliance on tradition.

        Third, the four beasts of Daniel are kingdoms in their final (not initial) configuration in 382AD, such that the 10 horns (dioceses) remain after the 3 horns (dioceses) are removed subsumed by the little horn (papal Roman Catholicism) which comes out of the 3 horns (the three Petrine seats of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, in their respective dioceses). This is described in Revelation 17 and ends with the 10 horns giving their kingdom to the beast. For the third time, all we need is knowledge of scripture and the witness of the historical record. There is zero reliance on tradition.

        The link you provided is in error because it does not cohere with scripture and the historical record. Indeed, virtually the entirety of the work claims to apply to the future, including making specific prophetic future dates (2026). Deuteronomy 13 sets the punishment of death for anyone who makes specific prophesies of the future on behalf of God when those do not come to pass.

        By contrast, all of what I say pertains to only what scripture has said and by examination of what has already come to pass. Anyone can examine these claims for themselves and independently verify them. Furthermore, I make no claims about what is to come, as I do not know. So, can you find an error here using only scripture and the historical record, without relying on tradition, prophecies of the future, or the authority of personal revelation?

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        @info

        “…just as Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord [..] Submission = Obedience on the part of Wives to Husbands calling them “lord”. Clear as day.”

        What is “clear as day” is that Peter called for wives to submit to their husbands and then immediately said “in the same way” husbands should also. In other words, the grammar shows that submission goes both ways. You can expect any interpretation that deviates from this to suffer from errors in interpretation. And it does.

        First, the Greek word translated “obey” here is hupakouō which is usually translated as obey, but can also mean to listen attentively, hearken to (or comply with), or to answer. This is worth keeping in mind.

        Second, nowhere in Genesis does it explicitly say that Sarah obeyed Abraham. “Obedience” is an inference. However, unlike Sarah, it does say that Abraham “obeyed” Sarah. The word used in Genesis 16:2 in the Greek Septuagint is hupakouō, the exact same word Peter uses to describe Sarah “obeying” Abraham.

        Third, as I pointed out previously, 1 Peter is about believers suffering, persevering in sub-optimal and difficult situations, usually under the domain of unbelievers. Peter is holding out Sarah as being the honorable one, not Abraham, who twice nearly subjected her to sexual defilement. Far from promoting patriarchy, the implication is that Abraham was acting as a bad husband, but that Sarah trusted God anyway when she obeyed Abraham. Peter states this explicitly:

        “…holy women who hoped in God… [submitted] to their own husbands…”

        Fourth, 1 Peter 3 uses an elided verb, a participle, and a “in the same way” were used to indirectly tell husbands to submit to their wives, but so also does Ephesians 5 use an elided verb and a participle to indirectly tell wives to submit to their husbands. The ferocity with which Ephesians 5:22 is claimed to explicitly be about submission and obedience while 1 Peter 3:7 is claimed NOT to be about submission and obedience at all is a grammatically suspicious stance.

        How is not circular reasoning to presume that every instance of a man submitting must not be obedience (or not submitting at all) but every instance of a woman submitting must be obedience?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Ramman3000,

        “…nowhere in Genesis does it explicitly say that Sarah obeyed Abraham.”

        Now this is stretching your argument beyond its yield strength. It cannot be inferred that Peter’s statements in 1 Peter 3:5-7 contradicted or mischaracterized the account of Sarah’s obedience in Genesis. It’s safe to assume that Sarah was disobedient in some respects, as AWALT. But she had to have done something right, or else Peter would not have made this reference to her.

        Moreover, The Red Pill, and the lived experiences of many men here, clearly prove that men submitting to their wives does not bring about Unity, but rather the opposite. So instead of arguing against the presumed error of men having authority over their wives, it might suit your position better to explore how Unity is described and encouraged in scripture, and then explain the proper context for the mutual submission that you say can create this Unity. You should also explain how this is fundamentally different from “men giving in to their wives’ demands just to keep the peace”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Now this is stretching your argument beyond its yield strength.”

        That’s correct. It is an intentional reductio ad absurdum. Unfortunately, I failed to communicate the correct conclusion.

        Sarah did obey her husband. But the OT (via the Septuagint) also records Abraham obeying Sarah. You can’t argue that the Greek word must mean obedience to authority and then conveniently say it doesn’t mean obedience to authority when it applies to men, especially since Peter is making the case for mutual submission.

        It is absurd to cherry-picking definitions to suit prior biases while neglecting logical consistency.

        “But she had to have done something right, or else Peter would not have made this reference to her.”

        Peter tells us why he made the reference: because Sarah trusted in God. I’ve read and re-read 1 Peter, and the theme of the letter is trusting in God through suffering without necessarily trying to avoid said suffering. Sarah obeyed her husband, yes, but this is an example of a trial in which the thing she did correctly was trusting God despite the very real likelihood of personal suffering.

        I’ve seen the same error made with regard to Rahab by those who think she was singled out because she lied, when she was actually being praised for her trust in God despite her sin.

        “clearly prove that men submitting to their wives does not bring about Unity, but rather the opposite.”

        First, this can never work if the wife does not also submit, and due to the Curse of the Fall it is probably significantly harder for her to do it. The fact that Paul had to tell women in a patriarchal society to submit is pretty suggestive of this. I’ll probably take flak for this, but men are much more naturally ‘submissive’ to their wives: protecting, nurturing, and caring for them (and their kids) is often second nature that does not need to be taught. Paternal instinct.

        Second, if you view submission primarily as “obedience to authority”, then yes, it cannot work because that’s the wrong kind of submission.

        Third, if you view authority as a way to resolve disunity, then authority is greater than unity, and I reject this. Submission in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3 is a means to an end, it is not itself the end goal.

        “it might suit your position better to explore how Unity is described and encouraged in scripture, and then explain the proper context for the mutual submission that you say can create this Unity. You should also explain how this is fundamentally different from “men giving in to their wives’ demands just to keep the peace”.”

        Yes I should. That’s a fantastic piece of advice. I keep tagging SF comments in my RSS reader as sources for future posts, and my list is growing. I might have to bump the priority of this one over any possible response to elspeth and my piece on Colossians for info, but I can’t maintain the level of writing output that you do. I’m very seasonal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        @ramram3000,

        “But the OT (via the Septuagint) also records Abraham obeying Sarah.”

        I have to disagree with that statement. Sarah and Rebekah are each playing the role of a Sage, as described in Christian Think Tank: Women in the Heart of God (IIc) (2004-2). (See Section 4, about half way down the page.)

        Sages (Wisemen and Wisewomen) of Old who advised Kings often had their advice heeded or ignored. And God told Moses to listen to Sarah’s sagely advice. So in obedience to God and nodding to the Wisdom of Sarah’s advice. By that metric you will also have to believe that Kings are in obedience to their Sages.

        How is it any different to God saying: “Listen to everything this Sage is telling you”?

        Abraham made the decision to expel Ishmael.

        Later on in Ancient Israel, David encountered Sagely women who treated him similar to how Sarah treated Abraham. See how she speaks to David:

        2 Samuel 14:13-17 (BSB)
        13 The woman asked, “Why have you devised a thing like this against the people of God? When the king says this, does he not convict himself, since he has not brought back his own banished son? 14 For surely we will die and be like water poured out on the ground, which cannot be recovered. Yet God does not take away a life; but He devises ways that the banished one may not be cast out from Him.

        15 Now therefore, I have come to present this matter to my lord the king because the people have made me afraid. Your servant thought, ‘I will speak to the king. Perhaps he will grant the request of his maidservant. 16 For the king will hear and deliver his maidservant from the hand of the man who would cut off both me and my son from God’s inheritance.’

        17 And now your servant says, ‘May the word of my lord the king bring me rest, for my lord the king is able to discern good and evil, just like the angela of God. May the LORD your God be with you.’ ”

        Although I regard this man as compromised by egalitarian/feminist ideology. At least in this regard I won’t be throwing out the baby with the bathwater with some points he made.

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramman3000,

        “First, the Greek word translated “obey” here is hupakouō which is usually translated as obey, but can also mean to listen attentively, hearken to (or comply with), or to answer. This is worth keeping in mind.”

        Note that the word used in 1 Peter 3:6 is a similar Greek word hypēkousen that is used when the waves and weather obeyed Jesus’ command (Luke 17:6), and Abraham obeying God in going to Canaan (Hebrews 11:8). Another similar Greek word hypakouete is used for children obeying parents (Ephesians 6:1), slaves obeying Masters (Ephesians 6:5), and sinners obeying sin (Romans 6:16).

        [Jack: References edited for accuracy.]

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “I have to disagree with that statement.”

        So, when Abraham obeyed (hupakouō) the voice of Sarah, this did not mean “obedience to authority”, but when Sarah obeyed (hupakouō) Abraham, it did mean “obedience to authority”? By what hermeneutical standard are you using to make this determination?

        If the answer is “hupakouō, like kephale, does not imply authority”, I’ll accept that and move along.

        Like

      • info says:

        @Ramman3000,

        “So, when Abraham obeyed (hupakouō) the voice of Sarah, this did not mean “obedience to authority”, but when Sarah obeyed (hupakouō) Abraham, it did mean “obedience to authority”? By what hermeneutical standard are you using to make this determination?”

        If a King listening to the Sagely advice is obedience in that instance. Then I will accept that argument.

        But he still has the final say.

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramman3000

        For example when Sarah told Abraham to expel Ishmael. He did have the option to ignore her. And keep him on.

        But he was uncertain so he came to God about it. And God in turn commanded Moses to listen to his wife in that instance.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “If a King listening to the Sagely advice is obedience in that instance. Then I will accept that argument. But he still has the final say.”

        In 20 of 21 cases in the NT where the word is used, it is translated as “obey” and has the sense of following commands of a command giver. In 1 of 21 case, it applies to the duty of the gatekeeper.

        When Abraham obeyed Sarah, it meant that she told him to do something (a command) and he did it. This was not advice. Hagar was Sarah’s slave, not Abraham’s, and she told Abraham to have sex with Hagar to conceive a child. He did what he was told.

        When Peter talks of Sarah obeying Abraham, it is the same obedience with which Abraham obeyed Sarah. Abraham told her what to do, and she did what she was told.

        Neither Paul nor Peter discuss anything about a “final say” and there is full indication that Abraham and Sarah listened to each other and did what the other told them to do.

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramram3000

        Just as Jesus is not obligated to do as we ask. So did Abraham. As Head he has the right not to do as he was asked.

        If God said not to listen to his wife. Then he is perfectly fine saying no to Sarah. God as the higher Authority commanded and Abraham obeyed. So I think the difference between just heeding and obedience is obligation on the part of the person who isn’t the Head.

        If Sarah is any indication we can pray similarly to God as the Church. The obligation is what makes the difference.

        Like

      • info says:

        If there is nothing about the final say in regards to the Husband. Then Jesus doesn’t have the final say over the Church either.

        Like

      • info says:

        @ramman3000,

        “The three times Peter uses “homoiōs” (translated “in the same way”) he does so in the context of submission: 2:13, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 5:5. Like Paul, Peter stresses unity and equality (“co-heirs”, “honor”) without denying differences (“weaker vessel”). As I previously noted of wives:

        “In instructing wives to submit and respect and husbands to love and care, he was equalizing them without completely denying or eliminating their differences.”

        Telling husbands to love, nurture, cherish, and respect their wives while being considerate, compassionate, humble, sympathetic is submissive.”

        Indeed. Submissive to her needs. Like how we are meant to treat our bodies. However notice he doesn’t mirror the same treatment of wives as Husbands.

        Nor for the Husbands to imitate Sarah in obeying Abraham and calling her Mistress and Master.

        Like

    • Kentucky Gent says:

      Congrats, Derek! Your clickbait worked on me.

      Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        Uh, it is not clickbait.

        The article I linked to specifically shows that ‘kephale’ as ‘headship’ is an historical anachronism in the first century. For example, I said “The ancient Hebrew and modern English words for ‘head’ carry the connotation of authority. The first-century Koine Greek word for ‘head’ does not.” I also said “the meaning of ‘leader’ is medieval.”

        Like

      • Kentucky Gent says:

        It was a joke, dude.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. farmlegend says:

    Jack, I heartily salute you for producing this excellent blog. So many other wonderful manosphere blogs are, alas, gone. I’ve read all of your posts and have gotten much good from them as well as the fine commenters here. I hope you’re able to persist for a long time.

    I’m 65 years old and have had an interesting life. Discovered the ‘sphere around 2008 with Roissy’s blog and over the next few years literally devoured all the redpill content I could find, which was exploding. Much had gone wrong with the relationships in my life (thrice divorced), and though I had a fair amount of redpill figured out on my own, the content I consumed filled in all the blanks – suddenly, all the things that didn’t make sense, made perfect sense. Some day when I get some time I may compose an anonymous essay of my journey, which would perhaps only be interesting to those of us who have learned of plain truths and pretty lies the hard way.

    Good show, brother.

    Liked by 7 people

    • thedeti says:

      I don’t think I knew that story, especially about being thrice divorced.

      You’ve seen me say it before: Married once. If this current marriage ends for any reason, I’m never doing it again. This is one time when “never say never” doesn’t apply. I do mean never.

      Liked by 4 people

  10. Scavos says:

    Shout out to you, Jack!

    I remember hearing about you around 2019 via Ame and glanced over your site, but it wasn’t until you reached out to me for Dalrock’s archived files that I started to focus more on your blog. No amount of money could match the wisdom and guidance you’ve given me over the last 2 1/2 years. Hopefully, I’ll find others to direct your way.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. bee123456 says:

    Jack,

    Thanks for writing, blogging, and commenting.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: Authority Saves the Day! - Derek L. Ramsey

  13. Jack says:

    Thank you everyone for your kind words and statements of appreciation!

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s