Dalrock’s blog has been at the forefront of exposing women’s refusal to obey the clear commands of Scripture and pointing out that, as a rule, their rebellion is because they don’t like what God had to say. Unfortunately, and I say this as constructive criticism, there is a similar condition for the men in that certain points the Bible contains are not discussed because they are profoundly uncomfortable for the men.
In fact, Christian men refuse to accept the standards of behavior the Bible requires of them for the very same reasons the women rebel against God’s Word. Plenty of Christian men in the manosphere will probably take issue with that, but it’s true. In fact, these same men will reject what I’m saying for the same reasons the women reject what God has to say- it’s just too uncomfortable.
I married a very attractive, conservative Christian woman 10 years my junior who was still attractive and still enjoyed having sex on a daily basis after giving birth to more than 6 children. Judging from the commentary in the Manosphere that makes me an extreme outlier in the marital sex sweepstakes. Yet, she drank the feminist kool-aid and decided after 17 years of marriage that she was missing something that must involve another man’s penis… so she took me to court and destroyed our family. Yes, what she did was completely immoral but at that time I didn’t know what was happening and I’m convinced that if I’d understood then what I know now I’d probably still be happily married.
According to the Bible, she had no authority to divorce me (no woman has that authority) and God won’t recognize or accept an illegitimate divorce (c.f. Matthew 5:32-33 the woman could only commit adultery if she was still married, but if it had been a legitimate divorce she would no longer be married and thus couldn’t commit adultery). So, lawfully we’re still married and 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 applies to her. Just as she had no authority to “divorce” me, much less any reason to do so other than her NPD fueled EPL fantasies, she has no authority to “remarry” another man (a married woman cannot lawfully marry another man)… not that any man she’d be attracted to would have her at this point.
To continue the narrative, we get into areas that become progressively more uncomfortable to men, particularly Christians, because what the Bible says doesn’t agree with what the churches have taught for well over 500 years. The problem here is there are two sides to the ledger: Authority and Responsibility. My wife doesn’t get to sentence me to celibacy because men have the authority to take more than one wife and if they choose to do so God provided His rules for such marriages in His Law. God does not regulate sin. I recently told some friends that I’d never do monogamy again, and it’s true: even if I married another woman in a monogamish type marriage (which I’d never do), I’d still have two wives and if #1 ever wanted to come home I wouldn’t have a choice in the matter (c.f. 1st Peter 3:7: “Husbands *live* with your wives”). Yes, I’d expect #2 and #3 to be standing at the door with smiles on their faces to greet #1 and welcome her home.
The major point that makes Christian men and women extremely uncomfortable is the headship doctrine. “Wives, submit to your own husbands as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church. As the church is in submission to Christ, so also is the wife to submit to her husband in everything.” That is a massive disconnect for women who can’t stand the idea that they are to be in submission to a man, but it gets worse.
The relationship between Christ and His church is a master-servant relationship, so therefore the relationship between husband and wife is a special form of master and servant relationship. That alone is enough to cause the white knights to come out of the woodwork, pointing and shrieking. The point is further made in 1st Peter 3:1 that wives are to submit to their husbands, in silence, even if their husbands are disobedient to the Word. Is adultery disobedience to the Word? Of course. And the wives were commanded to do what, if their husbands are disobedient to the Word by committing adultery? Submit, in silence. Not only the women but also the men go ballistic over that, but it gets better. The first part of 1st Peter 3:1 says “Therefore” or “In the same way” which is a direct reference back to 1st Peter, chapter 2, the instruction to masters and servants. Read it and understand that it applies to the wives as well.
Christian wives claim that they want their husbands to love them as Christ loves the Church and this is one area in which the wives have a valid complaint although it’s based on ignorance. How does Christ present His church as spotless and blameless in the day of accounting? Revelation 3:19 is one specific part of that, He hold’s His church accountable: “Those whom I love I reprove and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent.” A reproof is verbal, chastening is done with a rod. It’s right there in one of those areas of Scripture that’s studiously ignored, because to mention it is to evoke screams of outrage from both men and women.
However, there is yet another side to loving the wife as Christ loves the church that is mocked and ridiculed, as evidenced by the comments in many threads on Dalrock’s blog as well as other Christian manosphere blogs. The problem is while men can legitimately claim that the women are in rebellion and using the police power of the state to abuse men, the men are also in rebellion because Christian men are completely uncomfortable with just how far their grant of authority goes and the responsibility such authority likewise entails. It literally scares Christian men to death.
I recently got into one of these discussions and after destroying one argument after another my opponent was finally reduced to saying this:
“I believe what I have been taught, that… [polygyny and all it entails] is sin.
An attack on Artisanal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against it, as no verse does so. The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?”
My response was simple: Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 are clear- if God did not prohibit something in His Law, it isn’t Sin. That isn’t to say it isn’t sin for a particular person (“whatever is not from faith is sin” and “to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin”), but those are personal issues between the individual and the Holy Spirit and the brother is NOT to be judged over such issues (Romans 14:4). To say that an Apostle in the New Testament “changed” the Law is incorrect because that would have them in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 “You shall not add to the word I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” and “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.”
Yeah, I know, lots of people have problems with that and I take massive amounts of flack for pointing out that a man can have more than one wife and even more flack when I point out just where that can lead.
My opponents’ answer exemplifies the attitude of both feminist women and feminized men, who are so indoctrinated in the ethos of our modern-day culture that issues like God’s ordained authority structure (the headship doctrine) and the responsibility of the one God has placed in authority to hold those under his authority accountable are not allowed to be discussed for fear of the point and shriek response by feminists and their gamma SJW churchian white knight defenders. They ignore the fact God requires husbands to hold their wives accountable and seek to find some Biblical justification to claim it’s a sin. At the same time, the aggrieved men who have been run through the divorce mill, had their families destroyed, been subjected to betrayal trauma, gas-lighting, passive aggressive behavior and worse are in their own way rejecting what the Bible has to say about how to deal with their wives.
I can understand Dalrock’s reticence and unwillingness to allow discussion of such things (I’m guessing) for fear of being painted as an extremist. I am well aware (probably more so than most) that the legal climate in which we live presents Christian men with the choice of either obeying God or man because of the laws that criminalize what Christians are ordered to do. Yet, we also have God’s Word:
Jesus said to “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars’ and render unto God the things that belong to God.” Marriage belongs to God because it was created by God, marriage is a covenant relationship to which God is a party, God provided His rules for marriage and Scripture says God takes an active part in the marriage (God opens and closes the womb, children are a gift from God). The problem is this gets very uncomfortable very fast.
This Is How It Works
- Marriage belongs to God, not to the state. God created marriage (Genesis 2:24), God gave His rules for marriage (Ephesians 5; 1st Cor. 7; 1st Peter 3 and lots of others), God claims to join the husband and wife as one flesh (Matthew 19) and God is a party to the marriage because it is a covenant agreement (Malachi 2). Therefore, it is idolatry to give to the state that which belongs to God (Matthew 22:21).
- Husbands are in absolute authority over their wives. Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:22-24) even if said husband is in sin (1st Peter 3:1). The husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church and part of that is the responsibility to hold her accountable in her behavior and if necessary to discipline her for her rebellion (Revelation 3:19).
- No woman has the authority to divorce her husband (Deut. 24:1-3). In fact, 1st Peter 3:1 specifically states the wife is to submit herself to her husband even if he is in disobedience to the Word, which means adultery on the part of the husband is not grounds for a divorce, even if women had the authority to divorce their husbands. The only place in Scripture that provides any justification to a wife divorcing her husband is in 1st Corinthians 7:15 in the case of an unbelieving husband leaving the believing wife. In such a case the wife is free to remarry, but only a Christian man.
- God will not accept an illegitimate divorce (Matthew 5:32-33; Matthew 19; etc). As we’ve already seen, no woman has the authority to divorce her husband (except for the cited exception) so any divorce on the part of a woman is illegitimate as far as God is concerned and the woman is still married.
- A woman who legally divorces her husband and marries another man is not really married to the second guy because she is still married to her original husband: both she and the man she’s now “married” to are committing adultery (Matthew 5:32-33; Matthew 19:9; etc.).
- For two married believers, divorce is forbidden. The wife is commanded not to separate herself from her husband (but if she does she’s to remain single or be reconciled to him) and the husband is commanded not to send his wife away (1st Cor 7:10-11). This did not change the Law (Deuteronomy 24:1-3) but is a further restriction placed on the bondservants of Christ by their Master.
- If the wife who separated herself from her husband comes to the point of repentance and seeks reconciliation with her husband, he is commanded to live with her, meaning he doesn’t have a choice in whether he takes her back or not IF she (in repentance) confesses her sin and willingly submits to him (1st Peter 3:7)
- A man can have more than one wife, so a man whose wife has separated herself from him can legitimately marry another woman, but he has two wives: one living with him the other having separated herself from him. The state will claim he’s divorced but from God’s perspective he isn’t and the second wife should be clear on that fact and be aware that the husband has a responsibility to be reconciled with his first wife if she ever wants to come home.
- All of the above can’t be argued because the instruction concerning marriage is among the most clearly stated in all of Scripture. It’s so clearly stated when taken all together that rather than discuss it most Christians prefer not to mention it at all.
The subject of one of Dalrock’s recent posts, Constance, said this:
“My ex husband and I had a mutual divorce 5 years ago and I’m still not over it. It hurts every single day. There was no cheating, just a long period of separation and drifting apart… I deeply regret the divorce and I feel like I had amnesia and trying to find my life back.”
She may call it a “mutual” divorce, but odds are she’s the one who pushed the issue, she’s the one who filed and her husband went along with what was obviously a done deal. Reference is made to the woman writing the frivolousdivorce blog to emphasize the point Constance was responding to:
“I didn’t have the strength of character to make it through the demanding years of our childrens’ teenage and college years. If I had endured those tough years, I would now have a companion to come home to, to eat dinner with, to go to a movie, travel, and grow old with. I do all of those things alone now. Seven years after the divorce, I still miss him.
Another woman has him as a husband and best friend now and he has forgotten me.”
If both Constance and her husband are Christians, there is a major problem with her situation and it’s sure to make most Christian men extremely uncomfortable. The point is Constance clearly violated a command from the Lord when she separated herself from her husband and she was further commanded to either remain single or be reconciled to her husband (1st Corinthians 7:10-11), but this is where the men rebel. The Word says “husband,” not “ex-husband” because she’s still married. Her husband was commanded in 1st Peter 3:7 to live with his wife and in Ephesians 5:25 to love his “wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word.”
But look at the responses of the men. It’s as if nobody ever heard of the book of Hosea. Yes, the husbands were placed in absolute authority over their wives (who are to submit… in everything), but with that authority comes responsibility and forgiveness isn’t optional if the wife returns, confesses her sin and in repentance seeks reconciliation. Yes, he can demand she toe the line (scripturally speaking) as a condition of reconciliation, but if she’s willing to be obedient he’s stuck with her.
Why do you think the disciples said to Jesus in Matthew 19:10 “The disciples said to Him, ‘If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.'” They understood that Jesus was saying that if you marry her you’re stuck with her. I have no desire to ever have my wife back in my life after what she’s done, but God willing, if she ever made the decision to seriously seek reconciliation I must trust that God will give me the grace to embrace her again (along with the extra 140+ pounds of lard she’s put on- excuse me while I vomit). I’ve read lots of horror stories of divorce, but I must say that I have to be in the top 5% of acrimonious divorces. This woman is STILL trying to put me in jail and refuses to allow me to see my children (the judge gives her anything she wants).
Marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and His church. What sinner, when he or she returns to Christ in broken repentance is ever rejected by Christ? How then can the husband, who made a vow to God to love her all the days of his life… how can he reject her when she returns to him in repentance after she has sinned against him? The answer is he can’t because they’re still married as far as God is concerned, regardless of what some judge says. Husbands, you were commanded to live with your wives and commanded not to send them away. If your pet land-whale comes back to you in repentance and submission, you don’t get to say no.
You say the husband married another woman? So what- like that’s an excuse? No, he now has two wives and an obligation to provide both of them with equal food, housing, clothing and conjugal rights (Exodus 21:10). That isn’t a polite suggestion. You might say “that’s illegal!” but you’d be wrong because it isn’t (see Brown v. Buhman, which struck down Utah’s prohibition on polygyny). Many people claim it’s a sin, but that disagrees with Scripture: Romans 4:15 says “Where there is no law there is no transgression” and Romans 5:13 says “where there is no law there is no sin imputed.” Not only is there no law prohibiting polygyny, but rather exactly the opposite: God regulated polygyny in the Law in the same way He regulated farming. God does not regulate sin, He prohibits and condemns it. In fact, look at Jeremiah 31:31-32, where God said He was married to both Israel and Judah. To claim having more than one wife is wrong is to claim God did something wrong… Christian, you probably don’t want to go there.
The point is simple: Women have some real problems with Scripture and what God says, as do men. However, there is a difference: Men were placed in authority over women, not women over men (1st Timothy 2:12-15). With authority comes responsibility and it is just as wrong for men to avoid the uncomfortable passages of Scripture that point to the extent of their authority over women and the corresponding responsibility men have been given for them as fathers and husbands as it is for women to avoid the uncomfortable passages of Scripture that point to the extent of the authority men have been given over them.
Yes, she divorce-raped you, took half your stuff, stole the kids, alienated them from you, screwed them up to the point they now have behavioral problems, got used as a cum dumpster by multiple men… but now she’s finally realized what a fool she was and is repentant. She wants to have her husband back. You married her, you have an obligation as a Christian to take her back.
Yes, you’re stuck with her. After all, you made a VOW to God, who will require that you keep it (Read Numbers 30).
Yes, I know, it doesn’t seem fair. The fact remains that Ephesians 5:22-24 is very clear. In commanding women to submit to their husbands in everything, the corollary is the husband has responsibility for his wife in everything. Look at Numbers 30, the law of vows. Just as wives will not be able to escape judgment by claiming she was legally entitled to divorce her husband for any reason or even no reason at all, so too the men will not escape judgment for refusing to hold their wives accountable because holding a wife accountable is now criminalized. Neither will they be held harmless for refusing to forgive and *restore* their wife if she is convicted of her sin, confesses it and seeks reconciliation in repentance.
There are solutions to these problems but to refuse to discuss such issues because they are uncomfortable for men and upsetting to women and their gamma white knights is not the answer. The situation we’re presented with is extremely complicated, but King Josiah faced the same situation. What did he do?
If you’ve made it this far, I’ll give you guys some relief. There’s a fairly simple way to ensure she’s serious about repentance and submission, but wife #2 had better be on board for it as well. In fact, part of the problem is men refuse to recognize the wife of their youth is in sin and still a wife, regardless of what some family court judge says. They refuse to acknowledge that and explain to their second wife that as far as God is concerned they’re still married to wife #1. In doing so they defraud their second wife. However, I’d guess that over 90% of the so-called “Christian” wives who divorced their husbands are unwilling to accept the following:
“Hon, while you were in rebellion against both God and me, I took another wife. If you want to come home, that’s great, but you need to understand that I will require that you meet your obligations as a Christian wife. That is, you will submit to me in everything. One thing I require is that you get along with my other wife. In fact, we will all sleep in the same bed and when we have sex all three of us will become very intimately acquainted. Scripture is completely silent on sexual contact between women and there’s nothing sinful about it, so I don’t want to hear the word no pass from your lips because nothing we could possibly do together is sinful. You had a monogamous marriage with me but due to your rebellion that’s changed. If you want to come home you’ll have to deal with it, cheerfully.
That separates the wheat from the chaff.