This is part of a series on patriarchy, headship, and submission. See this index.

The prophets of modern red-pill wisdom like to think that it has its roots in ancient tradition. I frequently run into comments that assert that what I believe is a modern corruption of the plain, ancient meanings of scripture as passed down for hundreds and thousands of years, despite my aggressive citation of the original Hebrew and Greek and the cited testimony of the early church fathers. The reality is:

Much of modern Red Pill wisdom does not align with scripture

In Homily 20 (on Ephesians 5:22-33) and Homily 26 (on 1 Corithians 11:2-16), John Chrysostom—writing in the late 4th century—promotes a much older patriarchy that looks quite different from the modern Red Pill. This article will cover the various key ways that the modern Red Pill differs from the ancient Christian patriarchy.

Creation

The first key difference is creation. Chrysostom explicitly states that women only became subjected to men because of the curse of the fall. The authority of a husband over his wife is not inherent in God’s creation of man and woman.

This was the conclusion of “An Analysis of Genesis 3:16.” Chrysostom even uses the same understanding of ‘turning’. The nature of the ruling of the husband over his wife in Genesis 3:16 overwhelmingly connotes a negative curse. One possible non-literal, verbose paraphrase translation that captures this is this:

That’s a proper curse, one which Paul in Ephesians 5 says only love and submission can cure, although Chrysostom, promoting his mode of patriarchy, believes that this curse is now normative and natural. Regardless, Chrysostom would disagree with modern Red Pill wisdom that God had designed men and women to be in a hierarchy when he created them.

Equality

In keeping with his view that women and men were designed to be equal, Chrysostom states that men and women have equal honor:

Chrysostom plainly believed that men and women were of equal honor, but that a woman needed to submit to promote unity and to avoid contention that naturally occurs among those of equal honor. This is quite different from the notion that wives should submit because God created men to have inherent authority over women. Chrysostom clearly believed that wives should submit to their husbands, but his reasons—inferiority vs superiority—bear little resemblance to Red Pill wisdom’s hyper-focus on exercising authority.

Authority

The modern Red Pill states that a husband should rule over his wife, exercising authority to correct her errors. But Chrysostom believed that husbands and wives should tend to their own marital duties and not worry about the deficiencies in their spouse.

…and…

Headship

As we saw in the section on ‘Equality’, Chrysostom did not interpret the word ‘head’ to mean authority, but instead declared this to be heresy.

And so it is that if the wife is inferior to the husband because he is the head, then the Son must be inferior to the Father. Unlike Red Pill Wisdom (e.g. “Wayne Gruden’s Study of the Greek Word kephale, “Head”“), Chrysostom understands ‘head’ to be a matter of priority or order:

That ‘head’ means preeminence, priority, or order—not authority—is a point that I have made time and again. It is why she is second. The meaning of ‘authority’ only arose in the common Greek language in the 4th century or later. Chrysostom, himself writing in the late 4th century, plainly agrees. It is also quite interesting that he calls her an authority, the second to the first, a comment that makes no sense if ‘head’ means ‘authority’ and ‘body’ implied complete subjection. For the Red Pill interpretation of authority to make sense, Paul would have had to use the example of a master and slave, not husband and wife.

Obedience

The Red Pill wisdom likes to quote 1 Peter 3, where wives are told to submit and the obedience of Sarah to Abraham is promoted as the key example. But, as I pointed out months ago, Abraham and Sarah obeyed each other. This is not some new idea that feminists came up with, but an ancient one found in the Old Testament (and the Greek Septuagint). John Chrysostom agrees:

…and…

In Abraham and Sarah we see the example of a husband and wife that lived without contention and obeyed each other’s commands, each according to their own authority. Chrysostom notes that Abraham obeyed his wife because he loved her. Love—not obedience—is the greatest form of submission.

Submission

The Red Pill believes that only wives can submit. They do not view a man’s service, sacrifice, love, or honor as submission. Chrysostom disagrees, arguing rather that love is a greater form of submission than a wife’s mere obedience.

…and…

..and…

…and…

…and…

Mutual Submission

The Red Pill wisdom rejects the mutual submission of members of the church. It falsely separates Ephesians 5:21 from 5:22 in order to falsely imply marital authority. But Chrysostom, commenting on Ephesians 5:23-24 noted that Paul’s use of “the church” implied the inclusion of both husbands and wives:

Thus the submission of the church to each other in Christ (in Ephesians 5:21) must logically include both husbands and wives in that submission to each other.

Conclusion

Red Pill wisdom is not ancient, nor is it biblical. Sure, parts of it are rooted in scripture, but it is at best a challenge to separate the good from the bad. The reason I focus on the original Greek language is because the proponents of Red Pill wisdom claim that it is biblical and that anything view that disagrees—including historical analyses—is a modern corruption. This begs the question.

And so it is interesting how John Chrysostom, writing three centuries after Paul, differs so greatly from the Red Pill’s version of patriarchy, despite himself promoting a type of patriarchy. They cannot both (if either at all!) be the form of God-given patriarchy described in scripture for 4,000 years.

Postscript

Chrysostom’s patriarchy is much less developed than modern patriarchy. This is because it had much less time to develop. Yet both are still deviations from scripture. It’s important not to fall into a false dilemma and believe that one must choose between Chrysostom’s view or the Red Pill view.

Two (or maybe three) hundred years earlier, a presbyter in Asia wrote “The Acts of Paul and Thecla”. He was subsequently deposed from his position for his forgery. Despite being a forgery, the Acts were widely disseminated and popular. Tertullian noted that the presbyter had written it “for love of Paul.” We can see that there were many in the early church who interpreted Paul’s writings in an egalitarian light. The idea that that Paul promoted the equality of women is of ancient origin, much older than the modern flavors of patriarchy, even as early as the first century.

Additional Reading

John Chrysostom, “Homily 9 on First Timothy”

On silence:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach [, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence]” (1 Timothy 2:12). “I do not suffer”, he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides.

On firstness or preeminence of the ‘head’:

“If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9). Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards.”

John Chrysostom, “Homily 10 on Colossians”

On subjection:

“That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, he says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master, nor yet that alone which is of nature, but that for God’s sake.”

John Chrysostom, “Homily 37 on First Corinthians”

On silence in subjection:

For having said, “Let your women keep silence in the churches”; and “it is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection”; he added, “as also says the law.” And where does the law say this? “Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16).