Headship Authority is NOT “beat you over the head” Patriarchy.
Readership: All
Theme: The W!tchy War on Masculinity
Reader’s Note: A response to Derek Ramsey’s mischaracterizations of marital authority.
Length: 1,350 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
“Submit” may not mean what you think it means.
In Derek Ramsey’s post, Talking About Old Women (2023/12/4), he writes,
“Never in the Bible is a Christian wife told to submit to her husband or a Christian husband told to rule over his wife. No such imperatives exist. Deti’s Patriarchy isn’t found in the Greek Bible.”
I’m not sure which translation Derek is using, but it’s quite clear. In case you missed it, this structure is based on Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:22-23,* Colossians 3:18,* and Titus 2:3-5,** which were cited by Riuoku in the comments. And let’s not forget Genesis 2:18-25, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 1 Peter 3:1-6,* and all the examples of righteous women in the Bible who submitted to their husbands, like Esther who saved her people by submitting herself to a pagan king (Esther 5) and Sarah who called her husband “Lord” and was deemed righteous (1 Peter 5-6*).
* Uses the word “submit / submissive”.
** Uses the word “obey / obedient”.
Furthermore, in regard to Genesis 2:18-25, Richard P said,
“There is an immediate hierarchy formed by distinguishing between the “help” and the “helped” that no amount of arguing can do away with.
To truly be a help, one must place their agenda lower than the agenda of the “helped” (see “submit”).
How can one truly help if the “helped” does not give the “help” any instructions on what he needs the help to do for him? (see “rule over”).”
This is common sense. This is domestic order. This is NOT “beat you over the head” Patriarchy.
There are so many descriptions of marital Headship in the Bible, and yet Derek cites one verse out of context (Ephesians 5:21) and gives a complex explanation of ‘elided verbs’ and ‘middle voice’ to claim there is no structure of authority in marriage. I admire his rhetorical card tricks in denying the obvious (Proverbs 10:19).
Stacking the Cards in One’s Favor
Headship is conditional on the Wife’s Submission, NOT on the husband’s brutality.
GBFM wrote,
“This is why ”beat you over the head” strict patriarchy isn’t necessary if you first lay out the conditions of a relationship with a woman (and she happily accepts them) at the very beginning of getting ”serious” with her and if she isn’t contentious to begin with, that is.”
Note the conditions: “…and she happily accepts them”, and “if she isn’t contentious”. IOW, here, Patriarchal authority / female submission is the default structure from the start. In that case, no problem! You’re on the right track towards having a Christian marriage.
But what if these conditions are NOT present, and you’re already married? This is the context that Derek routinely ignores, and it is the most common one experienced by men.
GBFM glosses over this situation, saying,
“You either make sure in the end to marry the right woman or not.”
…not recognizing that it is the nature of women to grasp for control over their husbands and men in general. Furthermore, there is no such thing as “the right woman”. You will always marry the “wrong person” simply because no one is perfect.
It is what it is, but not what you think it is. Thinking it is what it is not is a delusion — somewhat reminiscent of The Soul Mate Myth.
The only “right woman” is the one who willingly chooses to respect and submit herself to her husband, and this is highly conditional on her moral agency / spiritual maturity and her willing obedience to the Lord. The problem is that most women are NOT like this and don’t want to be like this either. But these women still get married and their husbands have to deal with it somehow.
Magically Transforming Simp-like Marital Suffering into Christ-like Sacrifice
In the same post, Derek writes,
“When a man in modern society is frivolously divorced and loses his children, he needs to be humble and loving, enduring his suffering — just as the slave with a cruel master had to endure it — for the sake of Christ knowing that this suffering will end after he has died and been resurrected in glory.”
Derek’s prescription is that these men should let a rebellious wife walk all over them, and they should suck it up and suffer patiently and righteously under their ex-wife empresses — a very fatalistic view that only enables and supports more female rebellion.
News flash — this is NOT a Christian marriage!
Deti’s approach is one proven strategy that can implement the Headship Authority structure in the context of having an extremely rebellious wife. The alternative is either a debased marriage or divorce, both of which harm the children.
But instead of recognizing the value of a sanctified marriage that honors God, Derek dismisses Deti’s approach as equivalent to an unholy vengeance.
“Deti is suffering, having been injured by the woman or women in his life. When he reads 1 Peter, a letter written just for men like him, rather than rejoicing in his suffering, he decides to spend his days working to make sure that women are made subservient to atone for what they did to him.”
So which will it be? Embrace the struggle to have a Godly marriage, or give in to “Happy wife, happy life” for the sake of suffering a morbid “peace”?
Apparently, Derek has never had to make this difficult choice.
The Sleight of Head
GBFM continues,
“The strict or should I rather say strictest patriarchists are the ones who failed to do the above to their detriment as I pity them for it (especially Deti who I have always liked even when we have disagreed).”
This really gets to the heart of the matter. Men hear all this talk about complementarianism, egalitarianism, “mutual submission” (e.g. Derek’s analysis of scripture), and “servant leader” stuff, and come away with the idea that hierarchy / Patriarchy is abusive / wrong / “beat you over the head” stuff. So then they don’t bother to check a woman’s submission during vetting, assuming they’re even aware of its importance. Then after they get married, they learn from the bitter teacher of experience that Headship Authority / Tingly Respect is the most fundamental element of a successful marriage, and that, contrary to the “beat you over the head” trope, wifely submission is the most important characteristic trait of peace and order in the home. In fact, wifely submission is the most crucial constituent element of a sanctified Christian marriage that glorifies God and blesses the children.
In effect, Derek is actively spawning more “strict patriarchists” by directing them towards the harsh teacher of life experience, using the scriptures no less, which is sure to dampen the joy of their faith over the long haul.
What is the Secret to Derek’s Magic?
Every man wishes he had a Proverbs 31 unicorn. Derek actually has one. Derek’s wife is and has always been a submissive helper, and he and his family have always been greatly blessed as a result.
The question is, how does Derek evoke his invisible magic authority over his wife?
The truth is, Derek probably doesn’t know the secret to his man magic. Like a fish doesn’t know what water is, Derek can’t see the forest for all the trees. He can’t see the value of hierarchy because he’s been submerged in it his entire life — thanks to a community that teaches women to conform to the scriptures.
For this reason, Derek will never admit that he has a defacto Patriarchal marriage that glorifies God. Derek is afraid to identify his marriage for what it is — a glorified Christian Headship arrangement, which I’ve described as Peaceful Unity.
Moreover, it is hypocritical of Derek to slam male / Patriarchal authority and wifely submission in marriage. So what is his motivation for doing so? I suppose it is because he is afraid of condoning spousal abuse. If so, that’s cherry picking. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or maybe he thinks that would be humblebragging. Or maybe he’s afraid that he’ll dishonor or offend his wife or jinx himself. Or maybe he’s uncomfortable with all the responsibilities of being a Head.
In a word, Naïve Hypocrisy.
Or maybe he’s simply taking an opposing position for the sake of argumentation, or in order to allow both the supporting rhetoric and the public awareness of Headship Authority to develop.
Perhaps we should applaud his dexterous performance.
The Grand Finale
Derek could improve his performance as a mental magician if he focused on explaining the Peaceful Unity model, of which he is an expert, instead of lambasting the Headship Authority model, which he apparently knows nothing about.
I kindly urge Derek to find the answers to these questions for himself in order to achieve an awareness which will help his writings become more circumspective of the opinions and life situations of men who didn’t marry as well as he did.
Related
- Christianity and Masculinity: Intelligent submission is not required (2016/6/20)
- Dalrock: A big win for Grudem. (2016/11/22)
- Christianity and Masculinity: Headship is authority (2019/3/1)
- Σ Frame: What is a woman’s desire for her husband according to Genesis 3:16? (2020/10/23)
- Σ Frame: The Greatest Archetype (2021/5/21)
- Σ Frame: Headship Authority Takes Work (2022/8/12)
- Christianity and Masculinity: Biblical Christianity is both good and attractive while Western Christianity is not (2022/8/19)
- Σ Frame: The Challenges of Moving Towards Headship (2023/4/5)
- Σ Frame: Wayne Grudem’s Study of the Greek Word kephalē, “Head” (2023/4/19)
- Radix Fidem: Introducing Derek Ramsey (2023/6/8)
- Laughing at Feminism: On Tides and Trolls (2023/12/12)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
I am quite new to the Christian Manosphere (or ‘sphere in general) since I discovered it barely half a year ago (after a somewhat unpleasant experience with a contentious woman). Before that, I endorsed complementarianism, even though I considered myself a traditionalist and despised feminism.
Initially, things like ‘headship’ raised my hackles, but it didn’t take long to convince me. Suddenly, it all clicked: scripture supported it in so many places, this is how Christians lived for 1900 years, it made sense from common-sense and from my experiences with women, and perhaps the most convincing argument was that earthly marriage should resemble our relationship with Jesus (to who we are obviously supposed to submit to in a non-mutual way).
And then I stumbled upon Derek’s completely opposite stance on this issue. I had an impression that he really means what he says, so I gave him a benefit of the doubt and tried to understand his angle. Sadly, it was all in vain. I cannot either prove or disprove his points, which are mostly based on semantics of dead languages (‘elided verbs’ and ‘middle voice’). What is even worse is that those verses which undoubtedly support patriarchy he considers a forgery (because apostates like Bart D. Ehrman and other atheists / marxists / churchians say so). Every argument seemed blurry, it left me just confused and muddled in doubt.
So what choice people like me have?
— Believe that scripture at best is inconclusive on patriarchy. That the Holy Spirit couldn’t care enough to make it clear that one-sided submission is wrong, and has let Christians (and saints) to live in such huge error for over 1900 years. That He created hypergamy and shaped women to naturally be attracted to dominant men for no good reason. And allowed forged verses which unequivocally support patriarchy to be part of almost every canon of the Bible. And forever live a life in which I cannot believe what the scriptures say because one day a scholarist with a Ph.D. degree might say that it means something completely opposite.
— Or, believe that so many verses about and examples of women’s submission in the Bible are what they seem and that you don’t have to make mental gymanstics to explain that they mean the opposite. That Hypergamy exists for a reason. That the mess we currently live in is exactly because we decided to subvert God’s order. And just that truth is simple but hard to accept.
As for why Derek is doing this? Of course I can only guess. My bet is that since he is a quasi-public persona, he would risk a lot supporting patriarchy. I don’t think he intentionally tries to lie to people. I believe that he tries to be honest and really believes in the goodness of ‘mutual submission’ (whatever that actually means in practice). Since he found a naturally submissive wife and endorsing patriarchy on blogs is tremendously risky to his life, there is no reason to do so. Alas, he wants to be an honest Christian so it is only natural to grasp whatever argument you can find to support a feminist driven worldview — no matter how convoluted it is.
LikeLiked by 9 people
This is very similar to my experience from 3.5 years ago. Had my wife not been so contentious I never would have started looking for answer nor believed the truth about female nature. Reading other men’s accounts of their wives was like looking back on my own experiences and with so much consistency in behavior I knew the general principles behind RP knowledge were true. Applying that knowledge to my own behavior brought about the predicted changes in my wife and marriage, even thought it took a while.
Once I saw the truth about headship, God rules, Jesus submits to God for the church’s good, husbands submit to Christ for his family’s good, wife submits to husband for their children’s good, it becomes hard to not see the relationship in scripture. The concept of headship starts in Genesis and runs throughout the entirety of scripture. It is so prevalent, that if someone does not believe in headship that key points and teaching in scripture can easily be misinterpreted.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I do believe Derek is an intentional liar. And he tells those lies to turn men back towards serving women, just as Adam was turned to serving Eve’s desires instead of God’s, and thereby brought death upon us all. Derek twists God’s own words to make God into a seemingly p!ss poor author in an attempt to try to help salvage Derek’s own failing Feminist arguments.
That liar lied claiming I used “circular reasoning” when I answered one of his questions with a single unidirectional statement. When I kept pointing out how he was continuing to double down on his lying about it, he concocted a heap of bullshit about how my statement somehow “begs-the-question” which then let Derek add a bunch of his own words onto mine until he can weave from that one single unidirectional statement a complete circle by adding a bunch of his own words and his own nonsense reasonings to it. He forged his own lie against me from his own words in his own head and then tried to claim I was guilty of using some bullshit circular reasonings which he himself made up out of whole cloth in his own mind. I gave up trying to reason with that liar who would not quit his lying just to appear to discredit my message of truth with lies of his own making. I hate liars. And Derek is an unrepentant liar. However, I hate how he lies and perverts God’s words, even more than how he forges his own lies about my words.
Dalrock once explained how the “hide the headship” game is played by Feminists (like Derek).
Dalrock: Headship tomorrow and headship yesterday, but never headship today. (2018/3/26)
Unsurprisingly, Derek’s site has descended into a Snowflake whine-a-thon with all the usual suspects moaning about how the manosphere proverbially beat them up, gave them a wedgie, and stole their lunch money. LOL! I tried to feel sympathetic at first, but their overwrought bellyaching became so farcical and absurd that it got to the point of being comedic and got me laughing instead. I reckon that if they read this comment, I may get the opportunity to sell them some SMARTS (Sharkly’s Manosphere-Anxiety-Reduction Therapy Sessions).
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are unable or unwilling to address my ideas (and your own self-refutation), but have no problem directing your comments against me as a person, further spreading lies about me.
Anyone can examine the evidence in this thread for themselves and see that I didn’t make anything up.
Your axioms prevent you from ever being convinced. But others may not be so rigid, and so willing to examine something that challenges their deeply held assumptions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s where you were trying to explain your mental gymnastics:
https://derekramsey.com/2023/11/30/meeting-the-masters/#comment-7725
You’re now misdirecting people. That’s where you again said that I speak fallacies and explained it based upon questions which you yourself claim were somehow “begged” and then you yourself supplied your own answers to, and your own reasoning for, in order to make my simple true statement circular in your own mind.
So, we’ve arrived at the point where you say that I speak fallacies, and I tell folks that you are the liar who forges lies about my doctrine to try to appear to be refuting the truth I’ve shared, so that people will be more likely to fall back into your Feminist doctrines. Don’t for a second imagine that you didn’t start this enmity by first trying to make a liar out of me, falsely.
I’ll try to make this clearer for folks, even though they probably don’t care:
Derek: You seem to associate authority with the image of God …
Sharkly: The image of God is the foundation of why men have a divine right to rule.
Derek: Were someone to accept your claim as-is, they’d be forced to conclude that men do not have the divine right to rule over women because women are made in the image of God.
But, you have no grounds to make that claim. First, if you can’t say what the image of God is, you can’t possibly know how or why it would give men the divine right of rule. Second, your argument is circular reasoning, for you also claim that women cannot be in the image of God because men were placed to rule over them (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:7).
Sharkly: you claim I’m using “circular reasoning” as if I were making conclusions reasoned from my own presuppositions that you disagree with. When I was trying to explain to you what ranking effect the image of God would have on men, if they alone had it.
Derek: If you’d prefer to call it an axiom of belief or a tautological assertion instead of circular reasoning, I won’t quibble over semantics, as it is your belief that decides which of the three it is and I can’t read your mind.
Yet here you are, a month later, still trying to claim that the singular unidirectional statement, “The image of God is the foundation of why men have a divine right to rule”, (which would then also correspondingly be why women don’t possess that same right to rule) is, by itself, the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, because in your mind it “begs-the-question”, which allows you to add your own stuff until you’ve twisted it into a circle in your own mind. You’re a very stubborn liar, Derek.
Initially you claimed that when I said, “The image of God is the foundation of why men have a divine right to rule.” your argument is circular reasoning, for you also claim that women cannot be in the image of God because men were placed to rule over them (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:7).
When I pointed out that: Circular reasoning is mutually dependent proofs: “A must be true because B is true; and B must be true because A is true.” and that my two statements even when combined were not proofs, nor circular, but were merely corollary statements, you just revamped your lie by later coming up with your “begs-the-question” nonsense.
Because, as I had explained to you, things aren’t circular logic merely because they also have inverse corollaries:
“Masculine image of God = part of why men rule & why women don’t
or
Masculine image of God = why men pray uncovered & why women shouldn’t
That’s not circular reasoning. It’s biblical truth I am trying to show to you.”
Yet still to this day you’re lying and saying that my early church held belief is based upon the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, because you are too stubborn to ever admit that I was right to point out that you ignorantly throw out the names of logical fallacies even when you don’t truly understand them, as a defense mechanism to protect your Feminist beliefs.
LikeLike
I responded here. That is all I will say about it here, where it is off-topic (and probably in violation of the comment policy, not that it matters), but anyone interested can go read it there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Derek, I am disappointed that you still stubbornly cling to the foolish lies which you have told in your attempt to counter my (1 Corinthians 11:7) early church doctrine, which exalts men above your goddesses. I have now lived to regret the times that I stuck up for you.
LikeLike
For as long as you stubbornly insist that only you are right about everything and that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, a feminist, a servant of Satan, and a worshiper of human women, you will remain disappointed. Your calumny is entirely on you, and only you can answer for it. I hold no ill will towards you and hope that one day you will soften your heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t realize I was the only person who exclusively holds beliefs I think are right. Thank you for opening my mind to the possibility of also choosing beliefs I think are wrong. I’ll have to consider it. /S
If you repeatedly place serving womankind’s interests above God’s published instructions, you are granting the creature more worth-ship to be served than our Creator. And that has been Satan’s plan from the beginning, when he got Adam to obey the woman rather than God.
Derek, I can clearly see that you’ve lied about me, that you are a Feminist who worships women, and thereby serves Satan’s will. Would you prefer I be censored, and not be allowed to give testimony of what I see? Should it only be you who gets to claim others are posting fallacies? Should I not be allowed to confront those who lie about me and my beliefs? Should I be forbidden from calling out your Feminist doctrines? If I didn’t care, I’d just humor you. I risk incurring your shitstorms (seven lengthy posts against me in a month) because I care enough to stand up against your lies, and your Feminist idolatry for God’s truth.
LikeLike
The pure existence of the reproductive fitness test (“sh!t test”) completely debunks any ideas about “mutual submission”. A male feminist can argue all day about religious writings, but he cannot argue against human biology: Female reproductive fitness testing is focused on establishing sexual hierarchy. Passing fitness tests leads to enthusiastic reproductive sex. Failing fitness tests leads to failure in passing on genes.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter how smart these men were who failed to reproduce, or what they wrote. They failed to pass on their genes and in consequence to pass on their knowledge. This is one of the reasons we have the writings of Israel’s patriarchs condensed in a book, while all male feminists who have ever existed in human history (usually at the tail end of civilizations) became extinct together with whatever they came up with.
Additionally, if someone is no longer in the demographic of ovulating women, their theory crafting is completely irrelevant for the context of the “manosphere”. Whatever a post-menopausal woman thinks or does doesn’t matter: She is no longer a woman in the key sense. She might do nice motherly things to male feminists, but it no longer matters, because she will never ever have sex (again) to have his children. To have children with a fertile woman, a man needs to pass fitness tests continuously.
The latter is the “sacrifice” and the “suffering” the book talks about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Passing fitness tests is a big part of the suffering. Knowing that she’s fitness testing and correcting her in a calm loving way is also part of the suffering. It would be much easier to avoid the pain in one’s posterior by moving on and leaving her to her own devices.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is the reason why listening to old guys talking about their marriages with post-menopausal women is completely useless. Of course, granny doesn’t leave, because her uterus did go defunct long ago and the whole hypergamy with it. It’s also a reason why the “old woman young man” coupling is very common in church circles: Church men don’t pass the fitness tests of young fertile women. Older women are more ready to marry men, they’re are not actually sexually attracted to. And with these men they also can easily keep their legs closed before marriage.
However some churchians think a man legally shackled to an infertile woman with a dead bedroom, who likes to make his life a living hell, is him doing “sacrifice”, but this is not what the book says. It says, “Be fruitful and multiply!” It clearly instructs: Obtain woman at peak fertility age, endure her arduous testing and create new life.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Women are to have both inner and outer beauty because of your quoted statement and because middle aged men with resources tend to have options. Proverbs 5:18 tells men to rejoice in the wife of your youth. 1 Peter 3:1-6 tells women to cultivate their inner beauty and gives them instructions how to do this.
When a wife in her youth puts 1 Peter 3 into practice the end result is often a husband that cherishes her to the point he sees past the wrinkling and sagging to who she is as a person (wife goggles). He thinks of her beauty this way and that makes trading her in for a newer model highly unlikely.
Unfortunately,
this statement is the norm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RPA,
OTOH, if she is incorrigible and unteachable, sometimes leaving her to her own devices can be the best thing (or the only thing) you can do. Just tell God, “This is beyond my capability. You’ll have to help me out here. Teach her those things she needs to learn that I cannot teach her.” Then sit back and watch the show. Be ready to pick it up again when she comes around.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And that’s the problem with translations: There is no “the wife” in the text and no “your” before youth. The KJV “translation” simply doesn’t say what is in the original Hebrew source. It’s a theological (re-)interpretation by the medieval Church of England
‘ishshâh nâshîym is an irregular plural. The most accurate translation would be “many women”, a less accurate one would be “wives”. (As there is no term for “wife” in ancient Hebrew at all, we have to assume (!) marriage. However as Proverbs is just collection of extremely ancient sayings (much older than the Torah), so we don’t know if the author even knew about marriage at all.)
nâ‛ûr nâ‛ûr ne‛ûrâh is a plural form as well therefore it is clear, that not the youth of the man is meant. This part is clearly about youthful women.
Whatever was translated there has nothing to do with the original text and very much represents the doctrine of the Church of England.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DBD,
So, according to your translation, the Bible says, “Men should take joy in many young women.” This ONLY makes sense IF it is a non-sexual context, AND we recognize that this conforms to the archetype of Christ taking joy in His disciples, as was explained in Brides are Subject to Vetting (2023/10/23).
The problem is that people won’t understand this distinction and will jump to the conclusion that you are referring to a harem. So if you are going to explain Proverbs 5:18 in this way, then you must add the above explanation and present it in a way that will NOT give your audience the impression that you are a Dan Bilzerian wannabe.
LikeLike
DBD,
All of Proverbs 5 is below in the NKJV. It doesn’t matter what version or language the passage is in because the context makes the point of verse 18 quite clear. The first half is the warning against immoral women. The second half is about playing in the playground God gave you.
When the passage was written it could have been wife, concubine, both or many of each. The key to this is that the man is to both avoid temptation and find joy in what is his. Simply based on context, the translation of 18 seems like it communicates the intended meaning well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
DBD says:
The Septuagint is a translation that preexisted the medieval Church of England. It says “και συνευφραίνου μετά γυναικός της εκ νεότητός σου” (“and be glad with wife the of youth your”). Most interesting is the meaning of “be glad” which implies partnership.
LikeLike
@ramram3000
Hierarchy isn’t antithetical to partnership.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The wisdom literature in the Hebrew bible is the oldest (oral) tradition we have. We just don’t know the context. Ironically it’s attributed to Solomon, a tradition of a man who had roughly a thousand women, which would fit this.
However the thing I wanted to point out is that deriving doctrine from translations made with a specific doctrine naturally leads to invalid results.
For the same reason modern feminism tries to bend language to their ideas and tries to force anyone into using it, so users of feminist language can only come up with feminist ideas as a result: If you no longer have gendered pronouns in your language, you cannot express anything gendered.
Though Ancient Greek doesn’t have a word for “wife” as well. Gunaikós is the genitive singular of “woman”. The Vulgate reflects that:
Here it’s singular as well, but it’s “mulier” (woman) not “uxor” (wife). In Latin there is a term for a married woman, it’s not used here, because the translators didn’t understand the source this way.
So the “wife” entered the (English) Bible first through the Church of England. And it could only happen this way:
The CoE is not the worst offender though. The “Names of God” bible “translates” Proverbs 5:18 this way:
This might sound like nice advice in line with post 19th century Evangelical doctrine, but it’s not in the Hebrew text. It’s an Argument from Authority which fails, because it fails to represent the authoritative text.
LikeLike
The word for ‘wife’ is the same as the word for ‘woman.’ The meaning of ‘woman’ does not preclude or supersede the meaning of ‘wife.’ The word means wife. That a word has multiple meanings doesn’t alter that the word means what it means.
The meaning of ‘wife’ in Proverbs 5:18 is of ancient attestation. Here are the two earliest references that I found on my first search.
Methodius in “Banquet of the Ten Virgins” wrote that Proverbs 5:18 means that a man can only have one wife, rather than a plurality.
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles draws the parallel between Proverbs 5:18 and Malachi 2:14-16 (which uses the same language in the context of adultery and divorce) and then it explicitly mentions marriage.
Of course I could find countless examples of the ancient writings using the Hebrew and Greek words to mean wife.
LikeLike
Were that the case, you wouldn’t have to say it.
Hierarchy can certainly be antithetical to partnership. There are many examples from history, business, government, etc. of hierarchies that are not (and cannot be) partnerships. It is definitely possible for hierarchy to be antithetical to partnership. The converse is also easily shown. Partnerships can and do exist outside of a hierarchy. You can find many examples from the same areas.
Proverbs 5:18 places some grammatical emphasis on partnership. It doesn’t even mention hierarchy. What relevance does it have here?
LikeLike
Wife once only meant “woman” in English, too.
So he didn’t have the Hebrew text, but most likely the Vulgate instead and was building church doctrine on it. He wasn’t the only one, who ran into this error during the 4th century.
Now what I care about is the wisdom tradition of the original Hebrew authors and uncovering the original meaning, as I have access to that source. Yes I understand, that some 4th century church officials thought this verse is prescribing monogamy (based on a translation of a translation), while some 19th century Protestant churchians think it’s prescribing staying married to one post-menopausal woman (reflected by fantastically verbose “translations” of the verse found in some 20th century bibles).
Now I still don’t care about church doctrine, especially not about doctrine, which has been empirically proven false. Note how empiricism didn’t rebuke the original writings, it rebuked self-appointed church authorities making up rules on top of it over and over.
LikeLike
The Vulgate was created by Jerome in the 5th century. Both Methodius of Olympus—who died in c.311—and the Apostolic Constitutions were written in the 4th century. Both would have used the Greek Septuagint, just as Jesus and the Apostles did. But even if they didn’t, all this happened long before the Church of England.
Also, you have not addressed the reference to Malachi 2:14-16.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ramram
In which case the relationship between Christ and the Church isn’t a partnership either if partnerships must be egalitarian.
LikeLike
The Genesis 3:16 curse is real. When a couple marries they see each other’s strengths and weaknesses, there is no hiding them over the years. When a wife starts to become aware of the flaws in her husband hypergamy kicks in and she will test those weaknesses that give her “icky feelings” about him in an attempt to get him to fix them and control the marriage so he doesn’t “ruin everything”. It rarely ever dawns on her that her glaring lack of faith in God, and her resulting behavior towards her husband, are perhaps the biggest issues in the marriage.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Riuoko, leaving off the part of speculating on Derek’s motivations, your lead comment is a real cherry on top of a wonderfully uplifting post by Jack. You and Jack both capture what a stultifying experience it has been for me to read Derek’s writings about the unity model. Sharkly took a different tack than Jack, and Derek said it was ineffective. Something similar was my response to reading articles at TGC several years ago. My pastor lead it, and my friends all talked about it, but I was only frustrated by it, and found peace when I stopped reading it. Now a few years later, TGC has been exposed and provides an explanation for my reaction to it.
Jack, you ignored Derek’s spiel about lifting up men by taking their choices seriously, so he might work that angle, but my guess is he will like and agree with what you wrote in general because you aren’t undercutting other men like he says Sharkly’s arguments do.
Back to Riuoko, yes, there can be some unspoken shame to trusting what we read as simple people when a 150 IQ guy who writes thousands of words a day on verbs says you are wrong and that person is a sincere and loving Christian. They way you put two options with clarity exposed that I am partly ashamed for agreeing with point 2 compared with option 1. For one thing, me choosing option 2 is so much lazier than Derek’s mini book chapters that are obviously being written with diligence and sweat. So that makes me a bit ashamed. I can just pray that Derek’s hours of writing results in sanctification for him. Greg Koukl was explaining on his podcast at STR.org today that many times a sound argument will fall flat with an unbeliever, per Romans 1, but we make our case anyhow out of obedience and love. Likewise, I am the unbeliever in this example, compared with Derek’s arguments.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I also feel somewhat ashamed that I refute the argument I cannot fully understand. But thankfully one doesn’t have to always be able to do so to know who is right or wrong.
If the Derek’s reasoning was indeed correct, then that would mean that whole Christianity was completely wrong for almost its all existence. I refuse to believe that. I know this cannot be true through my faith. It stands against one of my axioms as Derek might have put it.
Ultimately we all rely on some axioms, and one of mine is that God would not allow for such confusion to happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
riuoko,
If Derek was correct, much of the bible would be wrong and that would mean we’re all allowing a lie to guide us. The whole idea of headship (authority structure with the ability to bind those under that authority to the decisions of the one in authority) is essential for salvation to exist. It is why the sin imputed to us through Adam is atoned for in the righteousness imputed to us through Christ.
The comparison of Christ and church and husband and wife makes more sense looking at more scripture than merely Paul’s NT mention. The idea that God chooses his church as the bride of Christ matches up well with a father choosing a groom for his daughter. Levitical law on sex and marriage is quite logical when viewed from this frame of reference as it both foreshadows Christ’s coming and serves as an earthly institution mirroring God’s relationship with us. It’s a foggy mirror due to sin, but it is there. Egalitarianism, in denying God’s authority structure, makes quite a bit of scripture lose the meaning God intended it to have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Riuoku,
This goes back to the spiritual error of relying on reason too heavily, as Arch Angel, Charlton, Hurst, et al. and I have written about. Fortunately, St. Paul gave us a passage that addresses this [emphasis mine].
In my experience, faith leaves the heart bright and the mind a little fuzzy. If I attempt to obtain an exacting logical explanation, it tends to erode the peace that surpasses understanding — because I’m relying on my own understanding more than on faith. I think this is a difficult hurdle for moderns to jump. If everything doesn’t line up with a full logical explanation, people are hesitant to accept it. It is hard for people to admit that their minds are incapable of apprehending metaphysical truths.
Following verse 6, the prayer in your case would be something like, “Lord, let me not be ashamed of my faith. Let me not be put to shame by those who rely on reason more than on trusting You. Let me cherish the joy of my salvation more than the glee of countering an argument.” (Change the wording to match how you really feel.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
A similar thing happened at the beginning of the 20th century with “praying in tongues”, leading to about 25 % of worldwide Christianity now believing a second “fire baptism” is necessary to be a “real Christian”, while all those guys in the 1800 years before them got it completely wrong.
Personally I like the overarching pro-patriarchy, pro-life, pro(-)creation narratives in the Hebrew texts, enhanced by the pro-Love narratives in the Greek texts. While I let wisdom influence my life and test it in practice, I’m not concerned with following church doctrine and I don’t care at all about modern doomsday cults.
LikeLike
Jack,
Instead of claiming that I’m ignorant, you could have instead said that I understand scriptures differently based on my metaphysical axioms. Instead, for no reason at all, you portray yourself to me as would any enemy. It is no wonder that I don’t follow your orders:
Overturning an axiom is substantially harder than overturning a logically flawed argument within an axiom. Even proving someone wrong is not enough to overcome blind faith. If one’s faith is so blind that they will believe something even when it is disproved, then convincing them to get a new axiom is far, far from possible. Since the so-called Peaceful Unity Model requires acceptance of a different axiom, I’ll stick with “lambasting” the Headship Authority Model. That at least has a chance of a positive outcome.
There is never going to be any degree of understanding of the so-called “Peaceful Unity Model” without changes to the metaphysical assumptions of this audience. Perhaps one day the inherent contradictions in the view will make this clear to some, but perhaps not.
Regardless, you didn’t even both to address the points I made in the post you were replying to. You simply repeated that this was wrong…
…without bringing anything new to the table. But I had already addressed these claims.
Titus 2:5,9 says:
Colossians 3:18,20 says:
Ephesians 5 says:
1 Peter 3 uses the same formula.
All of the cited English translations are non-literal unjustified translations. Nowhere in the Bible are husbands commands to leave or wives commanded to obey. To wit:
An appeal to common sense and domestic order is required because this is an inferential conjecture. It is not found in scripture.
What’s the point of saying I am ignorant when my views are based on what scripture itself says? This audience can’t even accept that the plain fact that the Greek never uses an active imperative verb to command women to submit or men to lead/rule, because to do so might require examining deeply held beliefs. To wit:
I’m going to keep attacking the Headship Authority Model because it is wrong and I can do so from within by accepting the axioms of this audience for-sake-of-argument, because I strive to genuinely understand it from within.
But when it comes to areas of metaphysical disagreement (e.g. Unity), there is no reason at all for me to defend my view. No one is even close to a genuine understanding of my view, just as the OP description of me is an almost unrecognizable caricature of reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please correct “Passive” to be “Middle”:
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t claim to be a Koine Greek expert, so I will rely on this site:
Hellenistic Greek: Lesson 20: The Middle Voice, The Aorist Middle (2010)
According to this site:
So how does middle voice change the meaning of this verse? The middle voice basically tells that it is a woman’s job to submit to her husband (acting upon self). How do you get from here to stating that, “Never in the Bible is a Christian wife told to submit to her husband”? Middle voice hardly changes the general idea behind this text.
And why it so important differentiate between “submit” (hypotassō) and “obey” (hypakouō, which may as well be translated as “listen”, not “obey”), isn’t clear to me either.
Both have very similiar meaning. The “hypakouō” emphasises listening, while hypotassō in a non-military sense, “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”, is a more general term for submission and can also be translated as “obey”. How does Paul using two different words when referring to wives and children (that both have similiar meaning and could both be translated as “obey”) is of importance to the general idea of wives submission? Seems like strawmanning to steer away the focus from what Paul is really trying to say.
LikeLike
Your point illustrates the difficulty with the English. I discuss this in great detail in “Men Act; Women Acted Upon.”
The most notable point is that there isn’t a way in English to differentiate between submission in the Active Voice vs Submission in the Middle Voice: the latter just means the former. In English, submission (as we mean it here) is an intransitive verb, but a verb must be transitive to be in the middle voice. It is extremely difficult to express the concept of submission in English while using the word submission, which is why I cited Mike Aubrey who says:
In English we can more easily understand the concept of being deferential, humble, respectful, and cooperative using intransitive verbs in the middle voice.
Her job? No, I wouldn’t say that.
The use of the middle voice shows that respect and deferral does not imply that it is one’s job, nor even that it is the essence or core of behavior. It’s something one does but does not necessarily imply the reason for doing so. It shares this quality with the passive.
If one is commanded to show deference (an active imperative), then they do so because it is a command: they must do so. But the middle voice is not an imperative: they simply do so, without any external implication for why they are doing so. To wit:
With a command, you can have obedience. You simply cannot imply obedience if one is acting upon oneself. That makes no sense. Obeying because one must obey is what the active implies.
It is challenging because the middle voice is not heavily used in English, so any explanations are ripe for misunderstanding. It’s very difficult to convey the sense of “acting upon itself” without using words that imply an active imperative: “the middle voice hardly changes the general idea.”
To “submit” and “obey” may not seem all that different if you are comparing both of them in the active imperative, but if one is active while the other is middle (or passive), then they mean different things. Slaves/servants and children obey, wives defer themselves.
Translating it as “obey” would be fine in the active, but in the middle it would be just as unclear as the word “submit.” After all, if I said “wives obey yourself to your husband”, this is obviously not the middle voice (and very nearly unintelligible).
The problem is that your “more general term” does not imply a strict hierarchy of authority as a matter of grammar. Your “more general term” is fully compatible with the “mutual deference” between husbands and wives in the literary inclusio that is Ephesians 5:21-33. In the common discourse, we all can rarely get past this hurdle.
LikeLike
Ramman,
Ahh… yes, you get it, but you refuse to summarize this behavior using the word ‘submit’ for some reason. Why? Here I thought there was no middle voice in English?
Focusing on the word ‘job’ is a distraction from Riuoku’s point.
The point is that being deferential, humble, respectful, and cooperative with the husband is the wife’s proper role in a Christian marriage. If she wants a Christian marriage, then she needs to play this role. If she refuses to play this role, then she doesn’t have a Christian marriage. Figuratively speaking, it’s the ‘job’ of a Christian to act like a Christian.
Yes, it does make sense. One must exercise moral agency to act against the fleshly nature in order to fulfill one’s prescribed role in a relationship. That’s what it means to be obedient to God (within a marriage). It cannot be reduced to a list of commands and rules because the purpose is to glorify God.
No matter how we might define submit / obey, based on Ephesians 5:22-24, your overall argument suggests that wives do not need to submit to / obey their husbands any more than Christians need to submit to / obey Christ. Can you see how this doesn’t pass the sniff test?
LikeLike
@ Jack
Not sure if you connected the full dots, but that is precisely the reason why Paul distinguishes between submit and obey for wives and children.
Submit implies that the wife has moral agency to understand the right thing to do and to do it, which as you noted for Christian wives is to follow their husband’s lead and respect him as the Church does with Christ.
Obey for children implies they may not have the full moral capability to understand yet why the parents are doing something.
The overarching theme through the Bible is that God wants us as humans to use our free will to submit to him to bring Him Glory. So too through God and Jesus, Jesus and the Church, Husbands and wives, and others. They are all a reflection of His Glory. This means though the word submit is used, it all ends up in obedience if we choose to do the right thing.
You get to the same place any way you go.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If you think that, you should reread what I’ve written here or do a google search.
Your English-language sniffers are off, and it does matter how we define submit/obey.
Paul never tells wives (or husbands) to obey their spouses. What you call ‘obedience’ or ‘submission’ is more appropriately termed ‘deference’ in the way that Paul uses it. Deference does not imply rule, which is why I spend so much time talking about kephale (head).
LikeLike
It isn’t easy to fully process Derek’s whole response, especially for someone who isn’t a native English speaker and who never learned linguistic theory behind the different English verb voices, let alone Koine Greek ones. Sooner or later I will dive deep into this topic, for peace of mind if not for anything more.
What I find easy to follow is Jack’s and DS replies. The difference between hypotassō and hypakouō is very easily explained by expecting wives to have more moral agency than children / slaves. The latter do only what they are told, nothing more, nothing less. From a wife it is expected more, meaning that obedience should come from within herself, something that she accepted, not something that was “beaten over her head”, to borrow this article’s quote. Not only she should obey her husband like children, she should also be proactive in being his helper.
It makes you also wonder. If Paul was so pro-“mutual-submission” (it still sounds like a self-contradictory term for my smooth brain), then why was he so careful to never order husbands to “submit” / “obey”, but to love their wives instead? If they are equal, I guess he would slip this verb in at least once somewhere? And no, Ephesians 5:21 doesn’t count. It does not refer to husbands directly, and the word allēlōn (ἀλλήλοις) may be translated as “one another” rather than “each other” in which there could be a subtle difference in meaning, especially in the context of submission (something that does not work both ways by common sense). While “each other” always implies the relation in both directions, “one another” could be used to describe a unidirectional relationship between several entities — which is a more fitting translation in the context of submission.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an excellent question, but you immediately reject the answer:
The meaning of “to one another” isn’t the point.
When Paul told both husbands and wives to “be submitting to one another” in v21-22, he used the middle voice, a participle in the context of a governing verb (“be filled”), and an elided verb (an ellipsis):
This is the start of a literary inclusio, a chiastic structure, a type of poetic parallelism. The other half is this:
These two halves say the same thing. From this we see (1) that husbands and wives are the subject of v21-33 (thus “one another”); (2) that submission of “one another” and of “wives” is off the same category, the same type; (3) both love and respect are examples of submission; (4) the language reflects the agency assumptions of the culture, with the husband being commanded to love, but respect and submission is not; and (5) reading v21 and 22 together would have likely shocked or angered husbands (not wives).
Paul was careful never to tell both husbands and wives directly to submit/obey in the way that children were to told explicitly to submit/obey (Ephesians 6:1). The same thing happens in Colossians 3:18 (wives; middle) and 3:20 (children; active). Why is this?
First, Paul is not concerned with hierarchy or authority with respect to husbands/wives, but he is with children. There is nothing contradictory about husbands loving their wives and wives respecting their husbands as a matter of being filled with the Spirit. This is mutual deference (“submission”):
Second, what Paul said was already inflammatory enough. Had he used the active form of submission, he probably would have had a revolt on his hands: from the husbands.
Paul is concerned with holy living (“be filled with the spirit), not with marital structure. In keeping with the patriarchy of the time, he is mostly concerned with the husband’s acts, paying much less attention to the wife.
LikeLike
@riuoku
Just finished a post on refuting this among other things. For this specific example just before the conclusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Earlier when I said…
…it turns out that this is precisely what is said in the new post:
So at least I didn’t misrepresent the argument. Hooray!
For all the words in that article telling me that I’m wrong, I still disagree that the inference is an explanation, but is rather a cop-out. Paul chose not to use the active voice when he could have and the post simply papers over this while relying entirely on the assumption that the middle voice is really identical to the active voice, only with a little bit of theological window dressing. But this isn’t a grammatical explanation at all, it’s just an assumption derived from external information.
Let’s make this last point clearer. There is a whole system of authority and obedience, including Gentile vs Genuine authority. That theology is imported into the Ephesians 5 interpretation. Rather than figure out what the grammar of Ephesians 5 means for theology, the external theology determines what the grammar must mean. That’s eisegesis, also known as begging-the-question. That’s why Mike Aubrey calls it a grammatical cop-out: it’s not an explanation because it’s not really a grammatical argument.
Not only does this avoid explaining the grammar of submission, but it also fails to explain the other grammatical features: the ellipsis, the inclusio, the participle, the meaning of the head-body metaphor, and the imbalance of emphasis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haven’t you said it yourself in Men Act, Women Acted Upon (2023/10/30) that:
The logical conclusion would be that Paul didn’t use active voice for women because he couldn’t have due Greek language conventions.
Regarding grammar cop-out coined by Mike Aubrey. I agree that it is a grammar cop-out, but if you want to state something as true, then it should be coherent with metaphysical truths and actual examples. The overarching theme overrides the grammatical salad due to the latter being limited to the language conventions if anything else. Not even scholars can agree whether “one another” (αλλήλων) is reciprocal in Ephesians 5:21, and you expect the Average Joe to believe that interpretation of an egalitarian scholar is the one Paul meant.
Mike Aubrey is not a objective person when it comes to biblical teaching. He spills it out in the last paragraph of this post:
How he reached that conclusion, that Paul expects equity and our conforming to cultural norms is beyond me. If he even contemplates the idea that marriage should resemble the relationship of Jesus : Church, then his assumption that marriage should fit the societal norms disqualifies him. The Gospel does not change, and shouldn’t be readapted to the changing world. This is what churchians do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
riuoku,
I just realized I had never answered your question, making it seem like I was fleeing!
There are multiple ways to address this.
First, Paul chose not to use the active voice when telling wives and husbands to submit in Ephesians 5:21. If he wanted husbands to submit imperatively, it would have, by implication, been an imperative for wives also. By including men and women together, he would not have violated the language restrictions.
Second, the middle voice was not Paul’s only choice. If Paul instead wanted to exclude men from submitting while ensuring that women submitted, he could have used the passive voice when talking of women.
Third, another way Paul could have excluded men from submitting would have been to use the active voice with a different word, as he did a few verses later when he told children to obey. If submitting means obedience, then he had—and demonstrated—the easy means to do so as an active imperative.
Fourth, in the case of a woman divorcing her husband, the active voice is used of the man. This means that when the active voice is used, context determines who the agent is. The relevance here is that if Paul wanted to tell a woman to submit (in the active sense), he could have used context to do so. But he did precisely the opposite.
In summary, Paul had many ways to communicate an active imperative for women to submit, but chose not to use any of those.
In addition to failing to do the things above, Paul further went out of his way not to imply any kind of active imperative for women to submit.
First, by elision, Paul didn’t use any verb at all to directly tell women what to do.
Second, by a count of words, Paul was clearly focused on what men should do. Men’s behavior was the focus and women’s behavior was incidental.
Third, nothing Paul instructed women to do went against cultural norms or Roman law. But what Paul was instructing men to do was definitely counter to the norms. Women hearing Paul’s words might think “meh, whatever, we’re already doing that, so I guess we’ll maintain the status quo” while men would be, at minimum, shocked, or perhaps even angered.
Fourth, there is an apparent inclusio between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:33 around the word “fear.” This is hidden in the English by translators. The implication of this inclusio is that Paul is addressing husbands and wives specifically in v21-33. In particular, v21—the mutual submission—refers to husbands and wives in particular.
Whether or not you agree with his conclusion, Aubrey’s conclusion is nonetheless well-supported by these four points.
Absolutely! I’m not threatened by disagreement or ambiguity. This only shows that everyone taking a personal position on this passage needs to be circumspect, open-minded, and oppose dogmatism.
Speaking personally, I avoid personal attacks (e.g. no “You’re going to hell!”), sticking to the issues of interpretation, and leaving each man to his own personal discernment. As far as I can tell, Aubrey is the same. But what do we do with the hardcore dogmatists?
LikeLike
Please disregard my third point:
I wrote this in haste. It is only valid as a sub-case of the first two options. It implies more than is justified.
LikeLike
Here is someone trying to introduce a concept to speakers of a language, which doesn’t have it, implying they got it wrong. Western missionaries did the same thing when they traveled Africa and told native people how they got it wrong. For example they told them should care about the past (the book the missionaries brought with them) and the future (apocalypse), but were unable to convey these concepts, because the native language of their target audience didn’t actually have a past or future tense. It didn’t, because these people didn’t need it. You only need a future tense, if you need to plan into the future and a past tense to review past planning mistakes. If you live in the literal garden, you don’t need any of that.
So the whole population of English speaking people got it completely wrong, because they don’t have a matching verb voice required to correctly translate the Koine Greek. It’s not because they simply did not need it and just conducted their lives including their marriages successfully without that for thousands of years.
Here we see a classic mistake of evangelists: They assume that their religion is universal and not a product of a surrounding culture, they present concepts as universal which only fit that culture. The same mistake happens when American evangelicals assume that their certified marriage is a universal concept, which applies everywhere on earth.
Conclusion: There clearly has been an “English” way to live marital submission. It’s ingrained in the language. The ancient Greek are extinct and English culture won’t become the ancient Greek culture, regardless of how hard you try.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The GOSPEL is universal and the Bible is for ALL cultures and people.
Are you saying marital submission by wife is “English” and not Biblical?
LikeLike
No, marital submission is biblical, but our understanding — of what marital submission is — is informed and colored by our own culture and language, rather than the culture and language in which the original was formed.
I spend so much of my time trying to make this point, that I hardly spend any time talking about biblical marital submission itself, which leads people to conclude that I’m an egalitarian, complementarian, or (as above) a feminist, though I’ve claimed to be none of these.
Compare these these statements:
In the first two the active and middle voice convey a completely different meaning. In the second two, both convey the same active meaning. The middle voice is an illusion.
When you read about wives submitting in English Bibles, you understand it as an active imperative because you speak English. This will necessarily impact your theology.
Deep Strength’s explanation is better…
…in that submission is not active, but it is still interpreted within the English-speakers cultural and linguistic framework, because at the very end, he still concludes that it really functions practically as an implied imperative after all, which isn’t an explanation at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Weren’t wives the husband’s property or at least exceedingly more controlled by their husbands when the idea of biblical submission was penned? Would the concept of modern patriarchal biblical submission not be far too lax then?
LikeLike
By this point in history, Roman wives had more-or-less full economic and juridical rights, but overall, the answer is probably “Yes.”
Perhaps the paterfamilias being instructed at the time may have said “Yes” as they reacted with shock to Paul’s instructions. But Paul was writing about holy living—submission in the form of respect and sacrificial love—not marital structure. What Paul said to wives was nothing they were not probably already doing, even as Paul dramatically altered what was expected of Christian husbands.
If you think Paul was focused on setting up a particular marital structure, then Paul would be horrified by the average successful marriage of today (let alone the failed ones, which we all agree are horrifying).
If you think Paul was describing how married couples should live a mutually holy life together in the Spirit, then there is no reason that Paul would object to various successful non-patriarchal marriages that conform to holy living (i.e. respect and love).
LikeLike
While I understand your conviction I view the Hebrew Bible and the Greek manuscripts as a product of a specific culture. Modern church doctrine is also is a product of specific cultures and differs noticeably both between continents and from Canaanite culture and Greek-Roman culture.
For example African and South American Evangelical Christianity is way too much oriented towards demonology and charismatic experiences as it reflects the widespread belief in evil spirits in their paganism. OTOH, Western churches started promoting absurd doctrines about sexual dynamics which don’t reflect the biological foundations and as a result failed in application for centuries: leading to reformation, before failing again (marriage registration laws), leading to deserted churches altogether.
So while I find church doctrine not being universal (very much to the disappointment of African/SA Catholics who think the West should bend to their will), I recognize the sexual hierarchy determined by human biology being present in all cultures and religions — all Abrahamic ones included. The Hebrew manuscripts also reflect it very well. The latter is the reason Western churchians need to bend them so hard to make them reflect their own dysfunctional doctrine.
LikeLike
Question — What is your definition of the Gospel?
Question — Do you think Muslim patriarchy and Biblical patriarchy are the same? Is Biblical patriarchy only suited for Jewish culture or for all cultures and people?
If you find church doctrine to not be universal — what do you think about the Nicene Creed?
LikeLike
To be clear, English has a middle voice. Translators can take any English verb and put it in the middle voice form, but it may not make sense.
This is well stated.
One of the key points of “Men Act; Women Acted Upon” is that patriarchal assumptions were built into the very fabric of the language itself. Even when women had sole agency in context, the grammar indicated that men were the agents. We simply cannot wrap our minds around the fact that if anyone was told to submit (active voice) it had to include men. In grammatical terms, women could no more commit adultery against their husbands than they could submit to them.
It’s like “man up” is built right into the language.
Aubrey notes here in response to this article that:
I struggle greatly trying to convey the Greek middle voice into English.
I would caution anyone from choosing the easy explanation because it feels right in our English-speaking culture. This isn’t meant to be easy, as the experts in the Greek language struggle with it. For example:
Notice how the meaning of the middle voice is very, very different from the active and passive. These are not interchangeable forms (except when they are!).
LikeLike
This is up there with the Africa is a matriarchy stuff.
LikeLike
This comment thread perfectly illustrates why I’m just done with this stuff.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Pingback: Headship is still authority in marriage and wifely submission is obedience Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity
A summary of the discussion about Greek verbs.
Derek said English has a Middle Voice. I’ve taught English to non-native speakers for 20 years, and I’ve never heard of a Middle Voice. And yet he has the gall to say my “English-language sniffers are off”, when I was referring to Jesus’ authority. I’m done interacting with him.
From Wikipedia: Reflexive Verb
Also from Wikipedia: Voice / Middle
Basically, the middle voice in Greek is equivalent to the reflexive pronoun / verb in English. Reflexive words show that the action in a sentence or clause happens to the person or thing that does the action.
This affirms the conclusion reached by Riuoku, Jack, and DeepStrength that the middle voice basically tells us that a woman must exercise agency to be submissive to her husband. (She is acting upon herself.) This is the conclusion that Derek has written 3,870 words (under this post alone) to avoid. Is it possible to invest any less effort to accomplish the same amount of confusion? (Proverbs 10:19)
Aside from all the grammar wrangling, Derek cannot present a convincing argument because he fails to illustrate how his interpretations are manifested IRL. IOW, his arguments are limited to Aristotelian Logos, and omit the other forms of persuasion, Ethos, Pathos, and Mythos. He needs to be telling us stories about his marriage, and how the Peaceful Unity Model works IRL. Instead, he avoids any testimony that would impart understanding and presents a tedious wall of words which confuses rather than enlightens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me show you something that confuses rather than englightens:
Why is this confusing rather than englightening? Because it is an oversimplification of a complex topic. It confuses because it simplifies. So this statement…
…reflects how misguided it is to try to simplify that which cannot be simplified. For example, consider the following:
I won’t post any more quotes, because that analysis is based on a 155 page thesis with 10 pages of academic references. But you can see the point quite easily.
Mike Aubrey also wrote “Active+Reflexive vs. Middle Voice: What’s the Difference?” which delves into this issue somewhat.
In English reflexive words are restricted, and ‘submit’ doesn’t translate from Greek into English in the middle voice (the English isn’t transitive, for one thing). Other words do, but this one does not. And, it’s worth noting again that the Greek word for submit doesn’t even adequately translate directly into modern English regardless of voice!
LikeLike
Hi Derek,
My recent posts about models explains the value of oversimplification — it imparts a general understanding of a topic that stimulates interest and allows greater understanding to be obtained. For example, I’m sure you learned that “God loves the whole world” before you learned about antinomianism, apostolicity, ecclesiology, eschatology, hermeneutics, inclusios, justification, middle voice, parousia, redemption, sacraments, salvation, sanctification, theodicy, transubstantiation, and so on. “God loves the whole world” becomes confusing when you try to explain damnation, suffering, and eschatology.
LikeLike
Pingback: Uncovering Nakedness | Σ Frame
I’m pretty sure no one will read this, and I hope no one does, really.
Derek and those like him have nothing for the average husband who finds himself married to a tendentious, contentious, rebellious wife who will not relent and will not submit. Derek would tell that man it’s just his lot to suffer in silence with her while she abuses him and uses him as her verbal and emotional punching bag. Derek would tell that man he’s to “submit” to her, even while she will not “submit” to him. Derek has no advice to remedy that situation or improve his life – no, he’s expected to simply take it and take it and take it and give and give and give while getting nothing back in return.
And, Derek has explicitly said if that man finds himself divorce r@ped, his children and most of his material assets taken from him, having to live on 30% of his income while his ex wife fornicates with men in the home he purchased, well, that man is to suffer in silence even more, knowing that his suffering will end when he dies. To Derek, this is the meaning of “husband loves wife as Christ loves the Church”. But there is no statement of what is expected of the wife. Derek is silent on this.
That’s not what the Word says. And that’s not acceptable in 2023 America.
Men are to stand and fight for themselves and for their families. And sometimes that means telling a wife “no”. “No, you don’t get to talk to me that way.” “No, you do not get to treat me that way.” “No, I will not allow this in my home.” “No, I will not accept you doing that. My wife does not do that. My wife does not act this way.”
The Word quite plainly and clearly says: Wife submits to husband; husband loves wife. Wife is to submit freely and of her own volition. Husband cannot force wife to submit. Husband can do things to encourage it, but it’s not to be forced. That is the God-ordained order.
If a wife will not submit, then she can be treated as an unbeliever which triggers the Pauline divorce option. If she’s an unbeliever who will not live in peace with her husband, and she leaves, then husband is not bound. A wife who will not live in peace with a husband and who will not perform wifely duties has in effect left and abandoned her marriage. I’ll leave aside whether husband can remarry, because it’s not really relevant here.
I cannot in good conscience read the Word as saying a man is required to accept unrelenting abuse and constant discord from a wife, that he is scripturally prohibited from putting expectations and boundaries on her, that he is scripturally prohibited from requiring her to meet standards, that he can expect absolutely nothing of her, and that he is required to sacrifice himself, his sanity, his health and his children, to such a sham marriage. That is not God. That is not His Word. That is not even Genesis 3, wherein God most certainly had expectations of Eve, He told Eve very plainly how she had failed, and He gave Eve her consequences — consequences which every female human who has ever since lived has been required to suffer under. It is simply not God’s nature to impose standards and consequences upon men, while women get to do and say anything they want. That’s not God. That is not of God. God made it explicitly clear in the very first pages of His Word that women are required to meet standards and must bear the consequences for failing to meet those standards. And so it must be in marriages as well. She who will not be a wife does not get to be a wife.
But Derek has no response to this. His only response is “Oh well, men suffer, while women get off scot free.” No. That is not God. That is not of God, and that is not in His Word.
No.
LikeLiked by 4 people
At a minimum, at an absolute minimum, a husband can expect his wife to, as Jack cogently says in a comment, “exercise agency to be submissive to her husband.”
In vulgar vernacular, husband has a right to expect his wife to be a big girl, put on her big girl britches, and choose to submit. He has that right because she’s a God-created human with free will who chose to marry that man (a man she picked) and thus chose to do all the things that choice entails.
The logical conclusion of Derek’s arguments is “it’s always the man’s responsibility and fault, all the time.” No. Women have agency. Women have free will. Women are bound by God’s commandments and are bound to take the consequences of breaking them. Married women are required to do what God commands and must bear the consequences for breaking those commands. The logical conclusion from that is that women have agency, and must be expected to exercise that agency for harmonious marriages. If a wife cannot or will not do that, then her wife status can and must be taken from her along with all the privileges and emoluments appertaining thereto. She who will not be a wife does not get to be a wife..
Derek would keep women permanently infantilized and not expect anything of them. I, like God, expect my wife to observe and adhere to the standards God imposes on her. I expect her to do so freely and of her own volition. I expect her to be the full agent she represents herself to be and as God created her to be. I won’t make her do those things, but I will allow the consequences to befall her if she fails to do them. Because that’s what God does with us.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Setting up boundaries and consequences for crossing them is a true love. That is how you upbring children. That is how you are a true friend, by rebuking him when he sins. Finally, that is how you sanctify your wife and thus love her. If she misbehaves and husband tucks his tail, he is commiting two sins. Sin of cowardness and most importantly sin of negligence.
We can debate what the appropriate boundaries and consequences are for Christian husbands, but they should be present and severe enough to invoke self-reflection in wife. Jesus didn’t ignore sins of the people around him and neither should a husband ignore the sins of his wife.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And further:
If we are going to accept Derek’s apparent claims that it’s always men’s responsibility and that women aren’t to have any expectations placed on them because they cannot exercise agency, then women truly are little more than overgrown children and thus must be required to submit to the men they’re related to their entire lives: First to their fathers (or older men); then to their husbands; then to their sons (or nephews or other responsible men in their families). Women must live their entire lives under a man’s direct line of sight authority.
Derek’s arguments turn on his apparent claim that women have no agency, or less agency than men. OK then. Women should never be permitted to live alone or with other women. Women must live with their fathers, then their husbands, then their sons or sons in law. Women are not to get formal education unless a man in authority allows it. Women are not to hold remunerative employment unless their male authorities allow it; and their wages become the property of their male authorities. Women should not be allowed to possess or spend money without a man’s approval.
Women are not to be permitted to vote or have any say or voice in public affairs. Women are not to operate heavy machinery, drive vehicles, or own or use firearms, unless their fathers, husbands, or sons allow it. Women are not to teach in church and most definitely are not to have any kind of pulpit ministry or serve as pastors in any capacity. Women are not to exegete the Word. If a woman has questions about what the Word says or means, they’re to ask their male authorities.
Women are not to be permitted to frequent places where food or alcohol are served without a male authority present. Women are not ever to be alone with men they’re not related to. And men and women definitely are not “to submit to one another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21 KJV). After all, if women have no agency, why are men to “submit” to them? If women are overgrown children as Derek suggests, why are men to have any regard for women at all?
Is this really the world Derek envisions?
No. God did not say this. God did not do this. This is not the order God created.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thedeti,
I do not recall Derek ever explicitly saying that women do not have moral agency, but I can see how this would explain much of his stance. If you or someone else can provide a citation for such a statement from him, it would be insightful to see what the context is for him making such a statement.
It is interesting (to me, anyway), to see how all this theological wrangling boils down to this simple assumption of whether women possess agency or not. I am glad I went to all the trouble to examine this topic last year.
To summarize this study in a nutshell to refresh our memory, and for readers who may not have been following along at that time, women DO have moral agency, but they hate to use it. Women have to be taught and disciplined to exercise agency, otherwise they’ll never develop it, they won’t use it, and they’ll hamsterbate all kinds of justifications for not doing so. Therefore, the way any individual woman should be regarded depends on what level of agency she has achieved. If she is without agency, then she needs to be disciplined, taught, and trained like a child. If she is more mature, then she just needs to be held accountable for her actions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Likewise, the husband is also recognized as having free will. That means the husband is to love and care for his wife freely and of his own volition. A wife cannot force her husband to love her through demands, or any of the subtle or more conspicuous control games that women play. That will always backfire and lead to him loving her less. A wife can do things to encourage her husband to love her more, and the way to encourage it is by being submissive, chaste, and respectful (1 Peter 3:1-2), but it’s not to be forced. That is the God-ordained order.
The problem with this is that women often marry men they have no desire for, and thus, they also have no desire for him to love her, or love her more. They just want him to stay in an emotionally insulated box and perform and provide. Another problem is that women don’t want to be truly loved in the full sense of being held accountable, being trained in righteousness, and being taught the word. No, they want to avoid all that. They just want to feel the Tingles, and in lieu of that, they want their husbands to stay in the doghouse and never offend their solipsistic sensibilities. So effectively, a woman like this has no intrinsic motivation for her to be submissive, chaste, and respectful. Instead, she must utilize agentic willpower, which women hate to do.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: Summary of the W!tchy War on Masculinity | Σ Frame
Pingback: 9. The Law of Activity | Σ Frame
Pingback: Misunderstood Models | Σ Frame