This is part of a series on patriarchy, headship, and submission. See this index.
Here is a very important comment (repeated in full below) on the topic of gender equality, which is related to the discussion of mutual submission. It is very important because, if what the comment says is correct, then mutual submission is logically impossible. Emphasis has been added.
The central theme of Galatians is ‘How is a person saved and justified? By works of the (Mosaic) law, or by faith?’ Almost everything Paul writes in this book (to the Gentile churches in the region of Galatia) is to answer those questions.
What Paul is saying here is STRICTLY to do with Salvation and Justification and NOTHING to do with the roles of men and women on this earth.
So yes, men and women have equality in salvation and justification, but they do not have equality in their God assigned roles and duties on this earth. The authority structure that God created on this earth is that of Patriarchy, (man/father/husband) rule and the Bible makes it clear that men and women are not equal in authority, role, or function on this earth.
Trey’s argument can be boiled down into the following points:
First, context—what is explicitly stated—is of primary importance. By deduction, Paul is not explicitly talking about the roles of men and women.
Second, by inductive inference, God as created a patriarchy where men and women are not equal in authority.
One of the things I harp on is relying on inductive inference while rejecting the much more important deductive reasoning. While Magnus certainly relies heavily on inductive inference in his comment, elevating his opinion to a high level, he also argues his primary point using deduction and by emphasizing context, two things that I frequently emphasize here.
Take special note of his approach. The deductive approach is the correct way to make a strong argument that demands a response (and here it is!). The inductive approach will inevitably end up biting one back, being easily defeated in argument (as below). Opinions are weak, deduction is strong.
So what do we make of Magnus’ strong argument? It turns out that the fault in Trey Magnus’ argument is not the argument itself, per se, but that he has not followed his own advice:
Setting the Scene
Let’s examine the context of Galatians by setting the scene. Here are where Paul wrote his letters:
And here are some of specific early churches, those who distributed Paul’s letters among themselves.
Paul wrote his letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossae, and Thessalonica. Paul founded the Galatian churches in Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Here are the consensus dates of Paul’s letters:
- Galatians (c. 48 AD)
- First Thessalonians (c. 49–51)
- First Corinthians (c. 53–54)
- Second Corinthians (c. 55–56)
- Romans (c. 55–57)
- Philippians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
- Philemon (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
- Second Thessalonians (c. 51–52)
- Colossians (c. 57–59 or c. 62)
- Ephesians (c. 62)
- First Timothy (c. 62–64)
- Second Timothy (c. 62–65)
- Titus (c. 66–67)
The patriarchal passages of Paul are found in bold above.. Of these, the latter four—from the latter period of Paul’s writings—are the most cited by proponents of Patriarchy.
The Context of Galatians
Early on, Paul had relatively little to say about husbands and wives. During the last decade of his life, he wrote much more on those topics. Thus, the exclusion of these topics from the earlier works does not imply that they were not important, relevant, nor applicable with his early works simply because he didn’t discuss them in those earlier works.
The historical context shows that it wasn’t on Paul’s radar at the time he wrote Galatians. The fact that he was silent on the topic does not imply that what he said wasn’t applicable to them (i.e. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence“). Thus, it is logically unjustified to make claims such as:
Yes Paul was talking about salvation and justification, but you can’t argue that it doesn’t apply in some way to what else he wrote just because he didn’t draw those parallels in that letter.
But you, the reader, need not merely blindly accept that Trey Magnus made a fallacious logical leap, nor must you ignore the point he has made. We are going to demonstrate it! We will see shortly that—while Trey Magnus is correct that there is absence of evidence in Galatians that the “not male and female” line applies to more than salvation and justification—there is no evidence of absence to support his claim. We will affirmatively prove that the opposite is true.
Now, having set the historical scene, we now note that Galatians was Paul’s first letter. Did Paul ever come back to that subject in his later works? It turns out that he did (emphasis added).
12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. 15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. 18 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. 20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.
Do you see it? Paul reprised his list from Galatians 3:28 in Colossians 3:11. But this time, he did so in the context of husbands and wives. These are parallel passages. But Colossians is not the only parallel account:
Ephesians 4:24 Colossians 3:10-11 Galatians 3:27-28 1 Corinthians 12:13
“…put on the new self, which has been created in the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
You have put on the new self that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it , in which there is neither “Greek and Jew,” “circumcision and uncircumcision,” “barbarian,” “Scythian,” “slave,” or “free”—but Christ is all and in all !
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ , there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus .”
…For we were all baptized in one spirit into one body , whether Jews or Greeks, whether slave or free, and were all made to drink of one spirit …
Paul ties together the context of Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Colossians. Thus, we understand Paul’s instructions to husbands and wives in those letters as being direct instructions the life of the new self…
Ephesians 5:18-22 Colossians 3:18-19
…And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless living, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and be making music with your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of fear of Christ, the wives to the husbands as to the Lord…
Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is proper behavior in connection with the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
…in which there is no male or female.
Each time Paul mentions these things, he does so in connection with Christ. Do it “as to the Lord,” “in the Lord,” “in Christ Jesus,” “because of Christ,” “put on Christ,” “out of fear of Christ”, “of God,” etc. To be “in Christ” is to share the baptism, the salvation, with Christ and to be joined into one body. It is impossible to divorce the context of salvation from the context of holy living, for the latter depends on the former.
What Paul Taught
Magnus is right in one way that he did not intend. Paul is not establishing the roles of men and women in Galatians, but neither is he doing so in Ephesians and Colossians when he talks of submission. It’s not about roles, it’s about holy living according to one’s new self in Christ.
Galatians speaks of salvation and justification, and in doing so explicitly associates “no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, no male nor female” with being already baptized with Christ. So when Ephesians speaks of a new self, being of one baptism with Christ, and Colossians speaks explicitly of the new self, having been already buried with Christ in baptism, and 1 Corinthians speaks of being baptized into one body and spirit, Paul is talking about the same thing that he talked about in Galatians.
Paul associates the context of Galatians with the context of 1 Corinthians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Paul does this by using common language. Paul does this. And this is not the only place he uses this shared motif: Romans 3:9 and 10:12; 1 Corinthians 1:22–24, 7:18–22 and 10:32; and Ephesians 6:8. In fact, this is Paul’s most common refrain.
What is salvation, but the replacing of the old self with the new self? It is within the very context of this new self—of which there are no distinctions for class (e.g. gender; ethnicity; social status)—that Paul gives his instructions to Christian husbands and wives. It is extremely difficult to read the corpus of Paul and conclude otherwise.
This is why, for example in Colossians 2:6-23, Paul tells Jewish Christians that because all share the same salvation—the same baptism of belief—there is no advantage to specific religious observances: being circumcised vs uncircumcised, religious festivals, and food and drink restrictions. The reason there are no distinctions in Christ goes well beyond merely salvation and justification into the life practices of every day.
The very reason for Paul repeatedly saying…
“…there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus.”
“…whether Jews or Greeks, whether slave or free, and were all made to drink of one spirit.”
“…For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him…”
“…the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free…”
“…to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
…is because those categories are not relevant because we are saved:
The very premise of Paul’s words are that because we are saved, now there is no distinction of persons. Moreover, salvation leads to freedom from the law, not its further application and bondage:
And so the irony is that when Paul says that in Christ there is no distinction of persons, salvation has already been accomplished: Paul’s words have everything to do with the Christian life after being baptized in Christ by faith in Christ, after salvation.
I’ve read Romans where Paul says that God does not show favoritism or partiality. I’ve read how God doesn’t consider the attributes that man considers, such as how physically attractive a man is, or whether he is a Jew or a Gentile. And I’ve read how God does this for those who are already saved. Paul makes very clear in his words that those in Christ have freedom. Not before Christ. Not merely upon our salvation and justification when we give our confession of faith. But throughout our lives in our daily practice.
What Trey Magnus is pushing is a bondage to law: rules, regulations, roles, and observances. It is antithetical at its core to the freedom that Paul described. His patriarchy binds both women and men.
Summary
Let’s stop and take the time to go over this again.
First, when Paul talks about the “new self” it is the Christian who has been baptized with Christ through Christ’s death and resurrection. Having put on a new self—put on Christ—there are now no distinctions for nationality, ethnicity, social standing, gender, geographic location, etc. All share the same new self in Christ. Paul uses this motif over and over again.
Then, those who have this new self put on various virtues of holy living, be they love, respect, submission, etc. This is done without respect for the above categories: the virtues of the new self come from a new self that does not consider those categories.
Put another way, Paul explained multiple times that we are all one in Christ. His instructions to husbands and wives are in Christ. Divisions—such as Jew and Gentile or male and female—while important to the world, are of no importance to Christ and Christians. Paul told everyone joined together in baptism with Christ to submit and love. Paul told everyone to love. And he told husbands to love. He told everyone to submit, and he told wives to submit. He told the general and the specific, all while making it clear that those differences no longer mattered.
Did God assign roles and duties to each person? He did not. That is an unjustified inference that Trey Magnus makes. Nothing that we’ve examined so far suggests this.
Did Paul say men and women have equality in salvation and justification while excluding equality in their living? No he did not, and what we’ve examined so far suggests the opposite.
Did God create an authority structure of Patriarchy? Did God establish clearly that men and women are not equal in authority? Nowhere in the Bible is such a structure or claim established, let alone clearly. It is all based on inductive inference. By contrast the parallels shown above are clear and direct, based on logical deduction: that Paul used similar, common language in his various letters to describe the same concepts collectively.
Postscript
Readers here probably noticed that Paul’s reprised list in Colossians does not include males and females. This is such an irrelevant point, that I didn’t even bother to address it in the main article. Paul makes many lists and often utilizes figures of speech to partially list the things it represents (e.g. an asyndeton in the fruits of the spirit). Paul does this in many of his letters. Anyone who has read all of Paul’s corpus is likely already aware of these habits. In particular, this motif is found in many different letters and forms. It is Paul’s most commonly repeated phrase, which allows us to draw numerous parallels among his works.
Regardless, this is such a weak objection because it violates the primary rule that context determines how to interpret a passage. Paul is clearly and unambiguously referring to all Christians, not merely the specific categories that illustrate his point:
…there is neither “Greek and Jew,” “circumcision and uncircumcision,” “barbarian,” “Scythian,” “slave,” or “free”— but Christ is all and in all ! For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus . …For we were all baptized in one spirit into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slave or free, and were all made to drink of one spirit… …For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him …
This is a matter of logical deduction. The objection is a matter of inductive inference. For that reason alone, we would normally ignore the objection. But I am discussing it here for completion.
The legalist reads these and concludes that, in Christ, we are permitted to divide people into categories, just as long as it isn’t the specific ones listed in whatever theology we’ve derived from chopped up bits of Paul’s words. Such legalism has no place being applied to the man who wrote the book of Romans (that’s the fourth quote, by the way).
Paul often reprised what he wrote in his other letters and he rarely quoted himself exactly. The fact that he wrote very similar things using common, but not identical, language helps us know that Paul authentically wrote those letters! When decades have gone by, nobody uses the exact same language to express the exact same concepts.
Yet, clearly, Jack and others think that Paul is explicitly excluding the male/female distinction by leaving it out, despite the list referring to “you all” being “in Christ” without distinction for categories. Thus, they conclude, that Paul must have been talking about different things because he used slightly different language. This is an absurd standard that no one would apply even to themselves, especially to their own writings that are a decade or more apart.
The fact that the similar language is used shows that Paul is referring to the same concepts. The fact that the language is not exact does not mean that he is not referring to the same concepts. The latter obviously does not invalidate the former. Indeed, the former is so common in Paul’s writing, that if we were to reject it, we might as well reject each and every lesser parallel between Paul’s works. But nobody does this, because everyone can clearly see the parallels.
As we pointed out in Part 1, when John Chrysostom read the words of Paul, he concluded that Paul was leveling the playing field with respect to husbands and wives and masters and servants:
Chrysostom, one who believed in patriarchy, would not have concluded that Paul was excluding women from his list.
All these men should just marry a sex doll.
I mean, that is all they want in the end. Even with household duties, it has been said by MANY commenters over the past decade that the man should check on the duties of the wife and make sure she is doing them correctly, and with children as well. When do these men sleep?
Im a life long bachelor and my home is box fresh and tidy. Not because I am effeminate. Its because I like a tidy home and I spend a lot of time at home I like my surroundings neat and orderly. When I was a in The Salavtion Army, a sister my age came by to pick up some donations I had and she wanted to borrow my bike.
She came into my apartment and said “Oh, wow….a man who can keep a house? Does it always look like this?” I gave her the “are you effing kidding look”and call it a hunch, I bet her home didnt look 1/8th as clean as mine.
These men always will find fault or something wrong with how you do things, how you live your life, what denom you belong to, what denom you DONT belong to. Red flags everywhere!
Miserable unhappy lot, and they want ALL men who come to their blog miserable and stuck and to become angry as well.
There is a disconnect between (supposed) bad theology—like what I describe on my blog—and the lack of bad results.
What they desire is that if anyone had bad theology, that they’d have a bad marriage to go with it. This would mean that the only good marriages were ones that meet their definition of what a good marriage should be. But life doesn’t work that way. A massive majority of happily-married-until-death marriages (the ones with 40, 50, or 60 year wedding anniversaries) could not describe their marriage as Red Pill marriages.
This is a big problem for Red Pill logic.
The Red Pill ideology requires one to believe that if any non-Red Pill marriage is successful, it is due to being lucky. And any Red Pilled man whose marriage fails after attempting to implement the advice is a failure due to bad luck.
The fact is that their ideology does not match real world results. If this were a rational scientific endeavor, they’d be forced to confront a bunch of failed hypotheses. But this isn’t science. It’s religion.
Red Pill logic doesn’t lead to happiness.
It’s akin to “Graph go up, masks work. Graph go down, masks work. Graph stay flat, masks work.”
“The fact is that their ideology does not match real world results”
True. But they will then speak like a Marxist or Socialist “Well, these ideas have never been tried not since the weak blue-pilled-men cucked the faith, took over everything in 972 AD whatever.
All these “weak” blue pilled men hardly have the power, ego, looks, status, intellect, skils and leadership to upsur all the Alphas and “take over”
The only way they could have done this…..is they, the elect, Red Pilled men would rather have sex, hairsplit about who is more cucked or Beta or not as smart, and brag, brag, muddle arguements, complain, always arms folded and “upset” with society. Never satisfied. Cannot ever be happy for anyone.
Miserrable people to be around. Hardly “leaders” and hardly “inspiring”
If that is how they behave (and many do) well, its no wonder these weak blue-pilled men took over. Heaven forbid if they have to do anything! “Those blue pilled men need to SUBMIT to us and DO as we say!!!”
This is exactly why many of them DID have failed marriages. No woman…no matter how “holy” she is cannot and will not be able to perform like Wonder Woman on every issues and yield to such impossible demands of a hubby. How can a woman be what they expect her to be when they are like what I mentioned above?
Even Jesus had to eat. Even Jesus had to go pray. Even Jesus had to use the bathroom.
Marxists talk like this all the time and so do the Champagne Socialists here in LA. “You live up this noble standard that I preach and tell you….while I just do what I want”
They’re impossible to talk to and deal with. No wife could live under such constant attack, correction and disatisfaction from her man.
They expect YOU to have this, or your “marriage is in trouble”
Just shut the door on single men and they dont like women. They really dont
Lastmod,
Your comment arrived late because it got stuck flagged as spam. I only just saw it. I’ve restored it, per usual. Thank you for your patience.
Peace,
DR
In the late 1980’s (maybe even earlier) you had that set of Baby Boomers who at that time….the first wave…..were cresting well into their forties, Many of them former hippies of the 1960’s and into the 1970’s. They were married now, some divorced. Some married again. They had the house now. They had jobs. They were becoming the establisment that they hated or supposedly disliked when they were younger. Some were indeed very well off. There was that one guy…….he was designing nuclear weapon guidance systems but was a “tune on, tune and drop out” and “End All War” type back in 1967.
Many lived in decent neighborhoods. Had good cars. Did sow their “oates” so to speak. And now? Its 1988.
Yes, Liberal. They didnt like Reagan. But had their refuge of stand up comedy, the media, TV shows like “Murphy Brown” (where it was OK to be well off, Liberal and with the subtle message of “we really didnt sell out”)
But many by this point actually became very, very mean people.
The humor left them. Think “Meathead” from “All In The Family”, THAT kind of mean. Think “Frank” from “Murphy Brown”, yes, that kind of mean. Angry at the rest of the country and people for not embracing their “infinite wisdom” and deep inside, upset at themselves for depending on the current system that they actually didnt like…..and reaping the benefits from it.
A lot of stand up comdey back then modeled this too. Lots of stuff from the “alternative press” (We had a weekly rag in the Albany, NY area called “Metroland” back then). It had listings of shows, some funny write ups, a comic strip from Matt Groening (when he was actually funny) and always, always some local political issue that was of “major importance” but somehow Reagan in Washington DC was “messing it all up”. Ads for futons, local ethnic restaurants, the cool, hip shops in the arty neighborhood (Lark Street in Albany. Caroline Street in Saratoga Springs. Jay Street in Schenectady).
I didnt invent the term, but I used it “miserable Liberals” was what was said back then by many. Cant be satisfied. So concerned about the “poor” but lived in Guiderland, Niskayuna, Colonie…..and Clifton Park. The humor was fast leaving their scene. Their now older ideas had actually, mostly been implemented.
Stuck on themselves. Were no longer open to new ideas or even a discussion with a differeing viewpoint, and when they were open. Defaulting back to only “Reagan” like a robot. Reaped the benefits on a system and shut the door on anyone else. Cried crocodile tears for the poor, minorities, and other groups but made d*amn sure, they foud the loophole in the tax system to not pay their share…..while screaming daily about “the rich not paying taxes!!!”
Not fitting in all areas…….but if Red Pill and Jesus is so liberating. Why STILL stuck on anger? Why the cynicism? Why the hatred? Why even the “worry” about the issues they so frightfully defend?
I think they have become what the “miserable Liberals” of that era became……..always upset, dissatisfied, smug, petty and cant understand why more dont like their stances….and most of them benefitting or did from the current sexual marketplace.
” what denom you belong to, what denom you DONT belong to.”
No,No,No-as recently made Saint theDeti might say, the biggest worry of commenters Eye of Sauron(who hasn’t been around since June ’23-for good reasons if you’re hip to them -ask
jack @sf in an e-mail if you must know what that means) and Jack have is that when you disagree with them supposedly you’re saying ”you’re not a real=true Christian”.Go read some posts and comments from late May- early -mid-June ’23 there and even some recent posts for proof of that.
”the biggest worry of commenters Eye of Sauron and Jack have is that when you disagree with them supposedly you’re saying ”you’re not a real=true Christian”.Go read some posts and comments from late May- early -mid-June ’23 there and even some recent posts for proof of that.”
This on that ”sectarianism” post illustrates what I was talking about in posts perfectly:
(I fixed jack’s well-known bad English and editing skills there)
& in the comments it was mainly this exchange between The Eye of Sauron and our friend the person(as I told Jack before i’am patient perhaps too patient with his gibberish and nonsense) known as jack :
The Eye of Sauron says:
Jack says:
They of course are innocent of schisms. Especially when they accuse certain of ”active persecution” while the others who stopped backing them are not referred to as ”active persecution”.Eben innocent Sharkly accused himself of ”active persecution” when he asked ”have you not read my voluminous and venomous well-known stoking ”active persecution” in the Manosphere comments for the last few years?” at Spawnys a while back that was what he asked strangely of -to Derek.
Professor,
I’m surprised that no one has noted the inherent contradiction here:
What is the Red Pill? Anyone? See:
Those in the ‘sphere constantly declare as normative what it is to be a real man and a real woman, and they are not shy pointing out what doesn’t qualify. Many a man advocates the use violence, coercion, and authority to enforce his ideology.
The double-standard is self-evident. If someone comes along and responds to the original content by saying “No, there is another way to do it” or “No, there is an error in what you say,” this is unacceptable and “promotes division.” Nevermind that the original content was far, far more divisive.
In the Christian Manosphere, Christian patriarchy is supposedly based on what God himself has demanded. But Roman Catholics and Protestants do not share a common gospel. They literally cannot agree on the single most important thing that God himself said, but somehow they are totally sure they understand what God wants on these significantly less explicit topics?
The point is that their problem isn’t division, per se, but only disagreement with their sacred cows. Everything else is fair game. They’ve stacked the deck and don’t like you to point it out, thank you very much.
The Red Pill is based on sectarianism. It’s whole existence is sectarian. It’s very purpose is the promotion of sectarianism.
Ironically, when I point out that my viewpoints are more popular (i.e. less sectarian) than their viewpoint—that my viewpoints actually work in real life—I’m (falsely) accused of holding an even more popular and less sectarian viewpoint: feminism.
Am I the only Red Pilled man who actually embraces sectarianism? It is the only way forward.
ramman3000 says:
Ironically, this is why I have no true place in it.
Professor, I blame you for this: now I’m going to have to actually read Jack’s post on sectarianism and perhaps even respond to it. Way to go. 😉
Peace,
DR
Pingback: Sectarianism
Pingback: Mutual Submission, Part 8