The Difference Between The Hypocrisy of Christian Men and Women

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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Crazy Women, Divorce, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Polygyny. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to The Difference Between The Hypocrisy of Christian Men and Women

  1. honeycomb says:

    AT .. All reasons I’ve stayed single.

    All of my (3 younger) brothers and 80+% of my male cousins have had divorces generated by their wives.

    And even those (good christian) men wouldn’t take them back because those women see nothing wrong with their behavior. Why should they? Unless a dramatic event changes our trajectory, which I don’t see, our women are lost.

    Considering the government has taken all authority away from men and only left the responsibility is a significant factor in the continued rebellion.

    TLDR .. The End is Near.

    • God’s Word doesn’t care about politics. You evidently didn’t read the post carefully. I said “IF” the wife returns in humble contrition and repentance, the husband has no choice. Will you obey God or men?

  2. Inner says:

    That is some hilarious shit, man. Great job exposing your religion as the racket for perverts that it is.

  3. honeycomb says:

    AT ..
    >God’s Word doesn’t care about politics. You evidently didn’t read the post carefully. I said “IF” the wife returns in humble contrition and repentance, the husband has no choice. Will you obey God or men?

    Easy AT .. errr Killer.

    I read you clearly. I will not enter into unGodly contracts / Laws. I remain a single man due to our rebellious women.

    I am happy with my Godly path. I hate our current state of affairs / laws.

    We haven’t been a Godly nation for a long .. long time. His judgement is upon us.

    At 45 years old .. I’ve never been happier explaining my positions at church. I’m not popular with my stance on women and marriage. As for the men at my church (or my family) .. all blue pillers bro. We’ve had these discussions about headship .. and they change the subject with me frequently because they believe the lie. Equality. Sigh, that’s not headship.

    I let it go. Or don’t .. it is your blog.

    As for women returning .. IF that happened .. which to my knowledge has never happened (re: men I know whom have gone thru a divorce) .. that subject never comes up. And why? It’s not a factor due to our current conditions which I mentioned.

    Honestly .. it would be hard for me to take her back. But, heck, I don’t have to worry about that.

    Any man who could would be a special man. And from your example .. you’ve made it almost impossible for a 1st world woman to except.

    • Any man who could would be a special man. And from your example .. you’ve made it almost impossible for a 1st world woman to except.

      I have to disagree with this. You would be amazed at how willing “1st world” women are to share a high-quality man. As far as women wanting to come back, you’d be amazed. If they knew that like the prodigal son they could always come home I think you’d truly be amazed at how many would.

      This is why I advocate polygyny using a written marital covenant. The state cannot accept polygyny as a matter of public policy, so the marital covenant (if properly written) is viewed as a contract of cohabitation. Get all the wives knocked up a few times and after that it’s a done deal. If one of the women decides she wants to leave, she doesn’t get to divorce you and she can’t take half your assets. Courts are very reluctant to separate siblings and when the question of custody comes up, you’re sitting there with an intact family with the siblings and she’s looking at a situation of being a single mom. Obviously the husband is in a better position to provide for the children, siblings should not be separated, and so the husband will probably get custody. That means the wife who wants to leave gets to make a child support payment every month.

      No cash and prizes, very small chance of getting custody, high probability of having to pay child support, a dramatic drop in income… all the incentives are arranged to stay in the relationship and work the problems out.

      But this kind of relationship inspires a lot of fear in men. Why? Because they don’t think they could handle being a cat herder. The reality is a relationship with multiple women is easier to handle than a relationship with one woman. It’s more difficult to get the relationship started but once it’s started… it isn’t nearly as bad as you’d think. Yes, I get it that most men are insecure, but a lot of it is stuff they can change. Don’t like the way your body looks? Hit the gym. Learn game and start blowing away women’s shit tests. Don’t think your dick is big enough? Buy a bathmate, use it and in a year or two you’ll have a much bigger dick. Meanwhile, buy your woman (or women) a kegelmaster 2000. They’ll use it because in the same way telling a guy he has a little dick hits really hard, telling a woman she’s so loose down there it’s like sticking it in a glass of water will really motivate her to tighten things up.

      Understand that women compete with each other. With 3 or 4 wives, they form their own “herd” and they police each other. That alone turns the hypergamy on its head. The structure of the marriage makes the husband more dominant and the women more submissive. In a monogamous marriage the wife can withhold sex, complain, nag and engage in passive aggressive tactics to get what she wants. Not so in a polygynous marriage. What she wants is her husband’s attention and the only way to get it is to give him what he wants: a sweet, feminine, submissive and sexually available wife. It used to be that only a wealthy man could afford to have multiple wives. Today that isn’t true. With three wives the family can have a full-time house mom and three wage earners working outside the home. That should put the household income well over $100k a year. With that kind of income it doesn’t take long to get out of debt, have a really nice home and a healthy savings/investment account.

      In fact, if a family does half the stuff I advocate the expenses will be really low. Once a good safety cushion of cash is in place, the family can do things most other “normal” families can’t. Homeschooling the children is required if one doesn’t want their children raised by a bunch of feminist SJW’s, but that kind of income means being able to afford field trips, expensive resources and equipment.

      This assumes the husband has tight game and can hold his frame, but that’s what the women want. No supplicating beta is capable of managing such a household. I’ve been in polygynous relationships and I’ve been in a 17 year monogamous marriage. I know the difference and it’s real. Just the subject of a wife cheating on you is a case in point. In a monogamous relationship other women will cover for her and facilitate her infidelity. Not so in a polygynous relationship, because there’s no way any of them want the others to know she’s unfaithful- because they’re in competition with each other and one of the ways they compete is in the area of loyalty.

      Get them all in bed together and they’re still competing because they have an audience of peers. I don’t think it’s conscious, but group sex is a lot wilder than one on one with any of them. In fact, regularly getting them all in bed will result in the women taking a lot more care in how they look. That’s my experience, others who have been in such situations can comment if they wish. But that isn’t to say that life with multiple women is one long drawn-out orgy. Meals have to be cooked, clothes washed, the house cleaned and children attended to. You have to get up in the morning and go to work. When you get home there are always things to do that need to be done.

      I know a bunch of Christian families with more than one wife. Believe it or not, there are several informal groups and they get together a few times a year. To me it’s apparent which families are rotational and which ones have regular “staff meetings” in bed, because invariably I never see fat wives in the second group. I don’t see many fat wives in the first group, but the effect of getting them naked together has a definite impact because that’s the way women are.

  4. honeycomb says:

    to accept .. not to except

  5. Don Quixote says:

    Hi Toad, long time no see.
    When king David fled from Absolom he left 10 concubines behind to keep the place, and Absolom raped them [2 Sam 16:22]. When David returned he didn’t touch them ever again [2 Sam 20:3]. These women really got shafted!

    • That was part of God’s judgment on David, stated in 2nd Samuel 12:11-12; what David did in private would be done to him in public. In other words, God ordained it and I’m rather leery of passing judgment on something God ordained.

      • Don Quixote says:

        I was just pointing out that these raped concubines were not welcomed back by David at all. The status of a repentant wife would surely require strict scrutiny, I went through a similar situation about 10 years ago but I cannot discuss it publicly.

        • I understand what you were saying, but David had other issues due to his position as king. He would have been compromising his position had he resumed a relationship with them, but he did continue to provide for them.

          The same situation existed with David’s final wife Abishag after his death, which resulted in Solomon executing his brother Adonijah when he got Bathsheba to ask Solomon to give Abishag to Adonijah to be his wife.

  6. Dave says:

    Did you just write that the spouse is to be corporally punished by her husband? If so, can you cite a single example of a NT husband who did so? If you can’t, will you then accept that maybe–just maybe–you may have misinterpreted the Scriptures on that topic?

    • Nice deflection Dave. Can you cite a single NT husband who:

      =saved his wife’s life?
      =helped his wife in childbirth?
      =cooked for his wife when she was sick?

      Are you saying that Ephesians 5:22-24 is somehow limited with respect to the husband holding his wife accountable? How does a husband love his wife as Christ loves the church? If you’re saying that the husband has no authority to hold his wife accountable and discipline her if necessary, you are the one who has clearly misinterpreted Scripture. Revelation 3:19 says “Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent.”

      Christ gave Himself up for His church, “that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body”

      So, we are to love our wives as we love ourselves. Take a look at 1st Corinthians 9:27

      but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

      If a man is to discipline himself, is he not to also discipline his wife? Revelation 3:19 clearly states that Jesus holds those whom He loves accountable and will rebuke and chasten them if they don’t repent.

      Now, please explain how a husband is loving his wife if he refuses to hold her accountable.

  7. SFC Ton says:

    I’ll have to read this a few more times but you do good work AT

    Here is the problem you have with these so called other men; understanding the Word of God, to the best ability mere humans can, requires an overt, unapologetic masculine frame. You are attempting to argue with essentially women, and therefore make no progress.

    Effeminate men want to pretend the Old Testament doesn’t exist because that’s where the examples of hard core masculinity and zealous for God come in. What’s his name took an ox goade and killed 600 is men, this was a righteous act and listed in Judges. Jousha a Caleb would be hated by modern Christians as they were zealous for war and blood against God’s enemies. God has no problems having His men commit genocide and these men get squishy over rebuking

    Women do not return. Look at Sweden. Hajjis rape Swedish women there likes it’s the national past time. Have Swedish women asked to return to the protection of Swedish men and to expel the hostile invaders? Nope. Any rate these weak men, i their weakness hope women will return to them if they are weak enough and weak in the right way. This is 180 degrees out from the Almighty. Men and women follow hard men, strong men. When the West was great we be lived in a hard and strong God, literally the Almighty. Not the all genteel

    General note, the Almighty clearly forbids what He wants forbidden. Everything else is legal, though doesn’t make it wise or profitable to do. And the forbidden list really isn’t that large

    Here are some of my favorite Chrsitian man of sphere hypocrisy
    The Bible says debt makes you a slave and to be avoided; most carry heavy loads of debt but want to say they are the righteous ones based on xyz
    Usury is a sin but they mired in the usury system
    They want to rule out large sections of the OT, especially regarding God being the God of war yet want to include other sections of the OT like being anti tattoo . So they are picking and choosing
    , which is a common enough thing but it’s the whole mote in your brothers eye vs the beam in yours

    For the most of men being Godly is about what fits their culture. To a degree that’s a non issue with me as I figure certain men will do better in certain areas regarding following God. All of us having our own areas of strengths and weaknesses but it does get old

    They are the new version of Puritans, allowing what they enjoy, gleefully commending others to a life of misery since it does not impact them

  8. SFC Ton says:

    It kind of reminds me of how people think the GOP is conservative but cannot show what they have conserved or deal with the GOP being the original big government political party

    They want it to be so, therefore it is

  9. Caspar Reyes says:

    Aside from the question of who initiates the divorce, an ex-wife who marries another is prohibited from returning to her first husband. Deut 24:4, Jer 3:1.

    • Not so fast. This has to be taken along with the fact that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. Yes, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 permits divorce and Christ explained that judgment in Matthew 19, saying that the only legitimate grounds for divorce was unfaithfulness on the part of the wife.

      However, in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, Christ forbid his married bondservants to separate from each other (which is inclusive, forbidding not just divorce but could be interpreted to include emotional separation). Look at the text- the wife is forbidden to separate from her husband but if she does she is to remain single or be reconciled to her husband. Not her “ex-husband.”

      Therefore, the only women who are forbidden to return to their 1st husband are those who were legitimately divorced by their unbelieving 1st husband because of her infidelity. Deuteronomy 24:4 does not apply to the so-called “divorced” Christian woman because over 99% of the time you’ll find that she’s illegitimately divorced and thus still married to her first husband.

  10. honeycomb says:

    SFC Ton ..

    Gotta agree with the weak men issue. It drives me nuts. And the women at church drive me nuts too.

    It makes mad where we as a country are headed.

    AT ..

    As for multiple wives .. errrr marital covenant .. isn’t for me. I don’t want kids.

    But .. otherwise it sounds good .. I’ll let you and Ton do all the heavy lifting on the big house families. I do like those that home school their kids .. that’s good work.

  11. SFC Ton says:

    Ton Spawn will go to public schools. I will train him in the things that count but public schools will be where he will demonstrate his skill set in the real world.

    He won’t have to pass a class or even avoid expulsion just do as he is trained

  12. Dale says:

    Overall, this is a great article AT. Well researched; thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts and their foundations down for us to read.

    Challenges for a few points…

    >And the wives were commanded to do what, if their husbands are disobedient to the Word by committing adultery? Submit, in silence.

    For this particular example, you are incorrect. Assuming it is established by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses (Deut 19:15-21), God’s law requires that the adulterer, male or female, be put to death.
    However, with any non-capital offense, such as coveting, dishonest business dealings, false testimony, etc., you are correct. She is to submit to him as husband.

    Similarly, you later add:
    > which means adultery on the part of the husband is not grounds for a divorce

    As stated above, the adulterous husband is to be killed. Thus she is to be freed from the law of marriage, and she is free to marry another.
    Now, in our legal climate, we do not execute adulterers. So a person may say that since her husband is still living, she is still bound by the law of marriage.
    So what is she to do? He should be dead, but our nations do not obey God’s relevant commands.
    I think it is very weak and untenable for me to claim that, while I openly disobey and ignore one of God’s laws, I demand that you follow the remaining related commands from God. A woman “stuck” with an adulterous husband would be in this situation.
    Ideally we would obey all of God’s commands. I can only control my own actions however, so second-best is for me to act as if all of God’s commands are valid, for my own choices. For me, I would say the adulterous husband or wife is to be treated as if they are dead. This means I no longer recognize any marriage they had while still alive. He/she is to be dead; and their former spouse is free from the law of marriage.
    But I also accept this is a difficult situation to judge, exactly because we do not fully obey God’s law, and thus there will be disagreements. While he should be dead, he is still alive due to our disobedience. So is the law of marriage therefore still in force, even though God commanded that the law be ended? Interested in your thoughts…

    The idea above applies also to the situation you mention where the formerly disobedient wife repents and returns, as the prodigal son did (“forgiveness isn’t optional if the wife return”). If she has refrained from adultery, then I of course agree. If she has committed adultery however, I think it valid for the husband to say, “you should be dead, and while I am not permitted bitterness toward you (Eph 4:29-32), wrt our former marriage, you are guilty of a capital crime and I will have no dealings with you”.
    Yes, Hosea took the adulterous wife back, but the whole point of Hosea being commanded to take a wife of harlotry was to should Israel the evil in their actions. It was meant (I think) to stop Israel’s actions; not to encourage wives to continue and imitate them. Hosea should not be read as a marriage guidebook, but rather as God trying to get the attention of a rebellious and stiff-necked people.

    Also, God gives two examples of completely refusing to forgive, or to accept a sinner into heaven (wrt salvation). The first is blasphemy against the Spirit (Mat 12:31).
    The second is in Revelation; during the tribulation some will choose to accept the mark of the beast. All who do are unsaveable (Rev 14:9-12).
    As with God and his covenant with us, I think there is an action a wife can take that is completely unacceptable to the covenant — adultery. Mat 5:31-32.

    >A reproof is verbal, chastening is done with a rod.

    That is a challenge for a word study, if I ever saw one. Thanks.

    >Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13
    Added to my memory list. Thanks for pointing these out. I read the relevant parts, and see no argument I can make. I did have the “no law means no sin” view before, but had no basis for it, other than “[having] the mind of Christ” (1 Cor 2:14-16, Col 3:15-17).

    BTW, although it might be appropriate to name someone as godless, which is apparently what “fool” means, I would advise against calling someone a fool (your comment above) given Christ’s warning on this in Mat 5:21-26.

    > The state cannot accept polygyny as a matter of public policy, so the marital covenant (if properly written) is viewed as a contract of cohabitation.

    I am not sure I would want two wives, but since I cannot get even one that’s probably a moot point. However, I think that in Canada the family court judge would decide that the first woman is your “legal wife” and the second not. So the first woman would still have the legal right to a divorce, with all the financial prizes that bestows. Therefore, she would not be seen as poor, as she will be stealing from her husband, and thus still very likely will get custody.
    No, I am not advocating for this result, just saying what I think will happen.

    I am interested in your statements re your experiences in a polygynous relationship.
    Are you married to these women? Apart from the moral concern with sleeping around, I suspect that the women would act differently pre-marriage, than post-commitment. Many women seem to run out of generosity, a few years into the marriage. I would wonder if the same effect might change the dynamics you described.

    Have a great night.

  13. @Dale

    For this particular example, you are incorrect. Assuming it is established by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses (Deut 19:15-21), God’s law requires that the adulterer, male or female, be put to death.

    Sorry, I can’t agree because nowhere does Scripture qualify the requirement of obedience that is commanded of wives. In fact, the passage I cited starts with a direct reference to Chapter 2 of 1st Peter, specifically from verse 18 onward, which is not just instruction to masters and servants, but cites as the servants’ example the behavior of Christ when He was being unlawfully condemned and put to death.

    Also, God gives two examples of completely refusing to forgive, or to accept a sinner into heaven (wrt salvation). The first is blasphemy against the Spirit (Mat 12:31).
    The second is in Revelation; during the tribulation some will choose to accept the mark of the beast. All who do are unsaveable (Rev 14:9-12).

    As with God and his covenant with us, I think there is an action a wife can take that is completely unacceptable to the covenant — adultery. Mat 5:31-32.

    I think this lies at the heart of your position on this. First, you are failing to differentiate your relationship with God the Father and God the Son. When you are born again you become a child of God, able to boldly go before the Throne of Grace because you have been imputed (judged) with the righteousness of Christ. However, while Christ is also the Firstborn Son of God who will have many brethren and thus your brother, because He redeemed you (He paid a debt He did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay) is is our Master and we are His bondservants.

    Your examples are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, by which action the individual refuses salvation and thus rejects the only hope of eternal life; and as to the second you only got it partly right. The passage in question says taking the mark of the beast AND worshiping the beast. It is my belief that the mark of the beast is an implanted RFID chip or something similar to that, which might be implanted in a child before they were even aware. However, there will come a point at which the consciously chosen act of bowing down and worshiping the beast will “seal the deal” so to speak and once having gone that far down the road there is no escape.

    Both of these are special cases. The first is a rejection of the atoning work of Christ which the Holy Spirit calls us to accept. Rejecting the Holy Spirit means no salvation and thus it is the sin that cannot be forgiven because there is only one hope for the forgiveness of sin: Christ Jesus. The second is for a specific time and a specific generation under specific conditions. It appears to me that you are looking hard for an exception that will justify a man divorcing his wife.

    God has the prerogative of choosing that there be some specific sin and condition of said sin that is unforgivable, but we as Christians do not. Look at what Jesus said: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” In other words you’re asking God to forgive you in the same way you forgive others and in terms of salvation every sin you’ve ever committed has been a death penalty offense.

    The idea above applies also to the situation you mention where the formerly disobedient wife repents and returns, as the prodigal son did (“forgiveness isn’t optional if the wife return”). If she has refrained from adultery, then I of course agree. If she has committed adultery however, I think it valid for the husband to say, “you should be dead, and while I am not permitted bitterness toward you (Eph 4:29-32), wrt our former marriage, you are guilty of a capital crime and I will have no dealings with you”.

    I have a real problem with this take on things because in keeping with the example of Christ, one must consider the effect of sin. Christ died for each and every sin ever committed, thus if there had been only one sin ever committed (Adam, for example) then Christ would still have had to die. We know that “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.” Yet, you say “our former marriage” as if there is some exception to 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. There isn’t. For two married believers, the marriage is permanent, ending only with the death of either spouse.

    Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was a judgment of Moses, it is not found in any of the books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers) and thus was a judgment of Moses sitting as judge over Israel and it became part of the Law forever. When you look at Matthew 19, the first question the Pharisees asked Jesus was what the grounds for divorce were. Jesus said “What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” In other words, there are no grounds for divorce. The Pharisees came back at him with another question- if there are no grounds for divorce, why did Moses say we could divorce our wives? Jesus answered that for the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted it, but from the beginning it was not this way.

    That passage cannot be read as Jesus approving of divorce, but with the question of the judgment of Moses squarely before Him, He interpreted it in the strictest fashion possible; but just as with Matthew 5:32-33, He points out that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. That obviously means that under the right circumstances (immorality on the part of the wife) divorce was permitted but every other divorce is illegitimate. The only way the wife could commit adultery is if she’s still married.

    However, we see something very interesting in taking a “big picture” view of the New Testament. In the Gospels we see Jesus the man in His earthly ministry speaking to the disciples and the people. In the book of Acts we have the Risen Lord speaking to His disciples and the people. In the book of Revelation we have the Ascended Lord who has now been seated at the right hand of the Father speaking. Sandwiched between the book of Acts and the book of Revelation we have only one passage in which the Ascended Lord is speaking directly to His bondservants: 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. Consider that for a moment, keeping in mind His responses in Matthew 19.

    Yes, an unbeliever may legitimately divorce his wife for infidelity, but for the married believers, the Master has spoken and there shall be no separation, much less a divorce. The wife is commanded not to separate herself from her husband (but if she does- implying that there are circumstances under which she must do so even though in violation of the command -she is to remain single or be reconciled with her husband. The husband is commanded not to send his wife away (which includes the Lawful divorce described in Deut. 24:1-3 as well as kicking her out without a certificate of divorce) and there are no exceptions for immorality this time because this is not a change to the Law (which applies to all people of all nations for all time) but rather a further restriction on Christ’s bondservants that He is free to impose on them. Simply put, there is no such thing as a legitimate divorce for two believers. Certainly there can be sin on the part of either one, but adultery on the part of the wife is not something the believing husband can use to divorce his wife and no wife (with the exception in 1st Corinthians 7:15) has the authority to divorce her husband for any reason.

    I think it is very weak and untenable for me to claim that, while I openly disobey and ignore one of God’s laws, I demand that you follow the remaining related commands from God. A woman “stuck” with an adulterous husband would be in this situation.

    As I said to Caspar, not so fast. The husband does not command obedience of his wife, rather, God commands the wive to be obedient (to submit) in everything. The husband may hypocritically demand obedience but in doing so runs afoul of 1st Peter 3:7 (his prayers being hindered) while at the same time if she is bearing up well under his unjust treatment she is being held in high esteem by God (who would obviously be listening to her prayers). However, the command that the wife submit to her husband in everything comes from God, not the husband.

  14. Amy says:

    Hi AT, very interesting article.

    I’ve been shocking those friends who can handle it with my opinions on this issue for several months now – namely, men can have more than one wife, while women may only have one husband. And men should have default custody. And and and….

    I agree that adultery =/= divorce, though the death penalty should rightly be carried out. But I do think that a woman who has divorced, than remarried, then divorced again may NOT go back to her first husband. (Deut 24:1-4) You may disagree with me based on some NT passages, which I understand – my hermeneutic makes the NT subordinate to the Torah.

    Kudos to you for tackling a difficult subject – though I’m struggling with the threesome idea.

    • Hi Amy

      I agree that adultery =/= divorce, though the death penalty should rightly be carried out. But I do think that a woman who has divorced, than remarried, then divorced again may NOT go back to her first husband. (Deut 24:1-4) You may disagree with me based on some NT passages, which I understand – my hermeneutic makes the NT subordinate to the Torah.

      The problem with the death penalty for adultery is “every matter shall be established by the testimony of 2 or more witnesses.” That’s the first olive out of the jar and it’s actually a significant hurdle to overcome. We aren’t talking about circumstantial evidence, we’re talking about catching the adulterous couple in flagrante delicto. Then we come to the term “adultery” and before we take someone’s life, the question must be asked- what does it mean? You might have a difficult time with this, but in order for there to be a charge of adultery there must be a married woman involved. Believe it or not, a married man with an unmarried woman is at best fornication, but it isn’t adultery. A lot of women have a very difficult time dealing with that. In fact, the term “fornication” is questionable. What does it really mean or describe?

      The penalty for a man having sex with a married woman is death. The penalty for a man having sex with a betrothed woman is death because both fall under the adultery prohibition. However, what if a man (regardless of his marital status) has sex with an unmarried woman? He is to marry her, unless the father of the woman refuses to allow her to marry him and in that case he has to pay the father the full bride-price. Where is the prohibition and where is the condemnation? Yes, I know, that certainly isn’t a popular thing to say amongst conservative Christians, but that’s what the Torah actually says.

      Look at Matthew 5 where Jesus says that if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart he has already committed adultery. What does the word lust mean? As best as I can tell, lust is a desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled. It is not possible to lust after your spouse, and as a man it is impossible for me to lust after a woman who is neither betrothed or married because I could legitimately marry her. Therefore, in mentioning lust Jesus had to be talking about a married woman. And if your right eye causes you to sin (by looking at that married woman and mentally undressing her) pluck it out. And if your right hand causes you to sin (by putting your hand on another man’s wife) cut it off, for it is better to enter the kingdom of heaven missing an eye or a hand than be cast into hell.

      Again, really studying the Bible to find out what it really says and doesn’t say will make you very unpopular, very quickly, if for no other reason than the fact that you’re contradicting long-held tradition and you’re right in doing so.

      If you look at my response to Caspar Reyes, you’ll see the issue with Deuteronomy 24:4 is that it only applies to a woman who has been legitimately divorced. Matthew 5:32-33 is clear, God will not accept an illegitimate divorce and in such cases the wife is still married to her first (and only) husband because only a married woman can commit adultery. If she was legitimately divorced she would no longer be married and could not possibly commit adultery. In accordance with 1st Cor. 7:10-11 (see my lengthy response to Dave, above) two married believers are absolutely forbidden to divorce so any so-called divorce they might have is automatically illegitimate and they’re still married. Therefore, the illegitimately divorced wife who purports to be “re-married” isn’t, she’s committing adultery and she should end her adulterous relationship and return to her husband. Only an unbelieving husband who divorces his wife for adultery has actually legitimately divorced her and in such a situation she can legitimately remarry. If she does so she does is forbidden to ever return to her first husband, but the number of cases you might find within the church that meet this set of facts is so miniscule as to be non-existent.

      To say that the NT is subordinate to the Torah is like saying the ring finger is subordinate to the thumb. 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 applies. The Torah (“instruction”) is all of the Bible: the Law, the prophets, the Gospels, the apostles, everything. No, not one jot or tittle will pass away until all things are complete (and we haven’t seen the New City of Jerusalem descending from heaven yet) so the “law” or “Torah” is still in full force and effect. HOWEVER, there are a couple of things that changed in the NT because the structure of authority changed. As a Christian you are a bondservant to Christ who is your Master. He has the authority to command you and further restrict your behavior beyond what the Law did, which is the case in the issue of divorce. Bondservants in the service of Christ are forbidden to divorce just as they are commanded to be obedient to their Master.

      As to what you call the “threesome idea” it probably isn’t quite what you think (unless you’ve got a *really* active imagination). Given your age and conservative upbringing, that’s natural. Understand that I’m a problem-solver and one of the biggest problems young men face is having a family that isn’t going to get blown up when Cupcake decides she’s not haaaaappppy. This is as much the result of unleashed hypergamy as anything else, so the question becomes how can we create a structure that re-aligns the incentives and uses the women’s hypergamy to give us what we want?

      This is similar to vitamin C (bear with me). When taken orally vitamin C is an anti-oxidant and scavenges free radicals from your system. However, when vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is titrated with sodium hydroxide to lower the pH you get sodium ascorbate and you can inject it intravenously without damage. When this happens you’re only adding a new ingredient to make it easier to take and changing the method of dosing, but an amazing thing happens. The ascorbic acid is now an oxidizing agent and it creates hydrogen peroxide within the cells. A normal healthy cell will neutralize the hydrogen peroxide with an enzyme called catalase, but many types of cancerous cells have little or no catalase, thus the intravenous ascorbic acid (IVAA) has a specific cytotoxic effect that first nails down and kills any metastasis and then goes after the tumors. Literally, depending on the cancer type, simple vitamin C in massive doses given intravenously can cure cancer. The problem is vitamins can’t be patented and drug companies would rather sell you chemotherapy treatments at $5000 per rather than $50 treatments of IVAA. Don’t expect to find this treatment available anytime soon.

      Changing from the monogamous form of marriage to a polygynous marriage we completely change certain characteristics of the marriage in the same way that ascorbic acid’s characteristics change depending on the route of dosage. And, just as we’d add sodium hydroxide to the ascorbic acid, having all the wives together in bed (at least occasionally) also serves a purpose that is beneficial to both the husband and the wives. Given your situation I’m trying to be discreet here, but I’m quite serious that a dominant man can marry a group of former sluts that are completely unfit for monogamous marriage due to their sexual history and with proper management they’ll work out just fine in a polygynous marriage. What we call “riding the carousel” is really another way of saying they’ve already trained themselves to share a high value man with other women.

      This is because of the natural characteristics of women, all of whom (that’s right, AWALT) are subject to the curse (Genesis 3:16). Being a Christian doesn’t take away the curse but with the power of the Holy Spirit a Christian woman has the power to overcome the curse. I am convinced that hypergamy is the modern word for the curse of Genesis 3:16. Women are creatures of the herd and with a polygynous marriage the man gives them their own herd that’s got a strong interest in the success of the marriage. Their natural instinct for competition with other women is now confined to a competition within the marriage for their husband, which is no different from an unmarried woman in a non-committed relationship with a man who can walk away at any time. Within the structure of the polygynous marriage these elements cause greater attraction for the husband because he’s the prize they’re constantly in competition for. The other wives find him attractive, therefore he must be attractive because preselection bias also has a part to play in this.

      Studies (especially the studies by Baumeister) show that women’s sexuality is far more plastic than men’s and while men would rebel at the thought of sexual contact with other men, women don’t have nearly as much of a problem with it. Partly (I believe) because God said He would write His Law on our hearts and while men with men is an abomination there is nothing in the law about women with women. There’s nothing wrong with it for the women and women certainly know their bodies better than any man… but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any boundaries. I wrote a series of novels about this situation and the women in my novels developed some rules:

      • -Kissing on the mouth was too intimate and was something they’d only do with their husband, but anything else he wanted them to do with each other was OK.
      • -Christians spend private time with the Lord so there must be one-on-one time with their husband for each of them.
      • -Christians are commanded to come together as a body to worship, so there should also be group playtime together.
      • -Playtime was either one-on-one or all together, no wife would ever be left out of group playtime.
      • -‘Where two or more are gathered in my name I am there also’ meant the wives would only be together in bed if their husband (who gave them his name) was with them. Otherwise they slept alone.
      • -They had two rules they’d decided on up front that he had to agree to before they married: no anal (for health reasons) and no X-rated photos or videos for any reason, ever. Other than that, anything he wanted was fair game as long as it didn’t violate their conscience (and they’re very open-minded ladies).

      The type of polygynous marriage I advocate is designed to be for life and everything is arranged to make it as difficult and painful as possible to leave the marriage. Policies like “all moms are ‘Mom’ to all children” and having each wife regularly nurse all the babies (requires having the babies in sets, but that’s for convenience) means each woman bonds with every child but if she wants to leave then at best she’d only get her children and lose the relationships with the other children.

      Regularly getting the wives in bed together is also part of that because the competition between the women means the husband gets their best. In a monogamous marriage (if you spend much time in the manosphere you’ll hear this frequently) the wife may refuse to give her husband the kind of sex she freely gave other men she was attracted to previously. One of the famous quotes from one such story (wherein the husband found a video of his wife getting gang-banged in college) was “Great, I married a whore that [has sex] like a prude.” In a polygynous marriage when the wife responds sexually to her husband in the same way she responded to men she was truly attracted to in the past because of her competition with the other wives, whether she’s really attracted to him or not doesn’t matter because over time she will become highly attracted to him. Feelings follow actions.

      I’ve talked to lots of women about this subject and once the moral objections are taken care of the vast majority don’t have an issue with it. As I’ve stated previously, you can’t find any particular sex act or sexual position mentioned in the Bible and it appears God is far more concerned with the relationship between the people connecting their plumbing than how the plumbing gets connected. In fact, the list of prohibited stuff is amazingly small. With two exceptions (no intercourse when she’s menstruating and no intercourse during the proscribed periods of time after childbirth) every other sexual offense is a relationship violation.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      I have a slightly different take. Perhaps when Toad has time we can discuss it. Husband can divorce wife; wife can’t divorce husband. Husband doesn’t have to pay alimony; but wife by default gets custody of kids. I base this opinion on several scriptural examples, including that of Abraham and Hagar. Land is the property of the man, children are property of the woman. A family requires the union of the two.

      I think most women would rather get alimony and dump custody onto the husband.

      • Only an unbelieving (non-Christian) husband can legitimately divorce his wife and then only for her immorality. 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 is binding on all married Christians, wives are not to separate from their husbands and husbands must not send their wives away. These are inclusive terms that encompass everything from emotional separation to divorce.

        In marriage everything is the property of the husband and children are the most valuable assets of the marriage. In terms of authority, the wife is to be in submission to the husband whether he is obedient to the word or not. As the head of the family if he wants the children he gets them. With Abraham it wasn’t Hagar that was the problem, it was her son and Abraham sent them both away.

        However, in the case of Christians the point is moot because there is to be no divorce. The wife who separates herself in violation of the word might feel she must take the children with her to prevent something like child molestation, but we’re talking the extreme example here that doesn’t come close to what normally happens these days.

        You might be interested to know about a study that was done in Switzerland, looking at the effect of family composition on whether the children were later church members. The highest percentage of children who were church members as adults were from father-only households followed by both parents present, while the lowest percentage were the result of mother-only households.

        Contrary to modern feminist belief, children are better off (in general- there are always exceptions) being raised by their father if there MUST be a separation of parents, but the best case is always having children raised by both of their biological parents and for Christians this is what Scripture commands.

  15. That’s some heavy stuff AT. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that’s a lot of food for thought!

    • And you wonder why so many of the Christians hate me? There is a reason why the Disciples said “If the relationship of the man and his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” They understood exactly what He was saying- marry her and you’re stuck with her.

      The real impact is in the “re-marriage” area, and for me to point out the vast majority of the “remarriages” in the church are illegitimate (adultery) does not go over well, especially because Scripture clearly supports what I’m saying. I’ve already deeply offended both men and women I was previously close to because they know what I said was correct but they can’t deal with it, so it was far easier for them to shoot the messenger. As a side note, it’s interesting how Ton’s advice on body armor so neatly meshes with what Scripture says about putting on the “whole armor of God.”

      Anyway, I just posted another essay dealing with solutions to this issue.

      • Well AT just think, if believer held each other to the standard that if they choose to divorce, they are also choosing celibacy and singlehood as long as their spouse is alive, how many fewer divorces there would be? Would that be such a bad thing? You are brave to call it out, because yes, that’s how it is written now isn’t it?

        • because yes, that’s how it is written now isn’t it?

          Well, almost, but not quite.

          The Bible has a double standard that says men don’t get to be sentenced to sexual starvation by women because they can legitimately take another wife. However, if the woman leaves her husband (which she was commanded not to do) she’s to remain in chaste singleness or be reconciled to her husband. Not her “ex-husband.” No dating, no screwing around, no “remarriage” to somebody else.

          Given that 70% of the divorces are filed by women and I’d guess about half of the ones filed by the men are the result of their wife making life living hell to get him to file, the women being forced to be chastely single after a divorce would probably drop the divorce rate by about 85% and cause them to work harder on fixing the problems in their marriages.

          But, I tend to get away with telling the truth because everybody knows I’m an asshole. Wait til you see what I’m about to post on your blog.

          • Lol AT, I don’t think you are an ahole, but maybe I just don’t know you well enough yet? Kidding!

            You are entitled to your say. People don’t have to agree, but if it convicts them perhaps instead of getting mad at you they should look into it further?

          • And AT it’s a topic I have struggled w understanding myself, I am going to do a study on it.

  16. techman says:

    Interesting post At. However you are not letting the scripture speak for it self.especialy on the divorce Issue. Jesus give the grounds for divorce I.e fornication by a spouce. Please note that fornication is sex with someone you are not married to. To commit Adultery is also to commit fornication. You can commit fornication without committing adultery but you can’t commit adultery without committing fornication. Also in 1 correct the scripture that you quote as evidence that a Christian man cannot divorce is wife and be free of her, verse 15 says other wise. If the unbelieving spouse wants to leave the believing spouse is no longer in bandage ie obligated to the one leaving. Also note that just as an unbeliever can become a believer, a believer can also become an unbeliever. Could say more, but that should suffice.

    • Techman, you really need to try reading for comprehension, but it appears you are just one more guy who desperately wants to find a Biblical justification for a Christian man to divorce his Christian wife. The problem is there isn’t any.

      Jesus give the grounds for divorce I.e fornication by a spouse.

      Wrong. First, Jesus interpreted the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-3) concerning divorce, which only allowed a *man* to divorce his *wife* in cases of immorality. The Greek word used is “porneia” from which we get the word “pornography.” The meaning of the word is generally held to be sexual immorality or illicit sexual intercourse. In His interpretation of the instruction of Moses, Jesus said IF a man divorced his wife for any reason other than “porneia” THEN any man who married her would commit adultery. This is also explained in Matthew 5:32-33, which states the illegitimately divorced woman commits adultery along with any man who married her.

      Any so-called divorce which took place for any reason *other* than the sexual immorality of the wife is illegitimate, God will not honor it and they are still married as far as God is concerned. However, a careful reading of Matthew 19 demonstrates that when asked what the grounds for divorce were, Jesus said “what therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” In other words, there are no grounds for divorce. The Pharisees asked another question: If that’s so, why did Moses allow us to divorce our wives? Jesus answered and said “because of the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted it but from the beginning it was not this way.”

      The first question was not specifically on point to the Law but the second one placed the question of the judgment of Moses in Deut. 24:1-3 squarely before Him, so He interpreted that judgment in the strictest of terms. It is impossible to read that passage carefully and make the claim Jesus approved of divorce, and we see that in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 the LORD gave His instruction to the married believers, commanding the wife not to separate from her husband and the husband not to divorce his wife. This was an instruction specific to His Bondservants, not to everyone. Thus, the Christian husband is forbidden to divorce his Christian wife for ANY reason.

      Other than 1st Cor. 7:15 (in the case of the unbelieving husband leaving his believing wife) there is no authority anywhere in Scripture for a woman to divorce her husband. The authority to initiate marriage was given to the MAN in Genesis 2:24. In Genesis 3:16 the MAN was placed in absolute authority over his wife (“and he shall rule over thee”) which was defined in Ephesians 5:22-24. In Deuteronomy 24:1-3 the MAN was given the authority to terminate the marriage. This was reinforced in Matthew 19:6 (“what therefore God has joined together let no MAN separate”).

      Please note that fornication is sex with someone you are not married to.

      Please cite chapter and verse on the definition of fornication, which contextually must be a sin. In order to be a sin (c.f. Romans 4:15 and 5:13) there must be a prohibition in the Law forbidding such activity. You should note that in the Law, if a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, he is to pay the bride price and marry her. If her father refuses to allow her to marry him, he is to pay an amount equal to the bride price. Where, pray tell, is there a prohibition or condemnation of this sexual activity between two persons who are not married?

      This is another case in which Christians (perhaps unwittingly) attempt to violate the Law by adding to the Law. Ironically, they do this while claiming the Law doesn’t apply to them.

      However, if a woman who is not a virgin marries a man and he finds her not to be a virgin, then makes a complaint and it is confirmed she was not a virgin, she is to be taken to the door of her father’s house and stoned to death by the men of the city. In both cases the woman played the harlot in her father’s house, but the death penalty only applied if in addition to having sex with some guy prior to marriage she attempted to defraud the man she would marry by claiming to be a virgin… when in fact she’d cuckolded him before they were even married.

      So, we see the woman who has sex outside marriage not being punished if she marries the man she had sex with, but she is punished if she tries to pass herself off as a virgin and defraud the man she marries. Both of these situations cannot be called fornication because the case of the man who seduces a virgin is not prohibited or condemned. This calls into question whether either of these situations was fornication, because fornication is obviously a sin and sin is a violation of the Law.

      But it gets even more complicated. What if the man who seduces the virgin was married to another woman? If he has to marry her he now has another wife. If her father refuses to allow the marriage he has to pay a price equal to the bride price for the woman. This is to compensate the father who has been harmed by making his daughter damaged goods. Still, there’s no prohibition or condemnation, so what exactly is the definition of fornication?

      A man having sex with a married woman (betrothed, married or illegitimately divorced) is committing adultery. A man having sex with a woman who is eligible to marry but to whom he is not married- is he committing a sin? Does intent have anything to do with this?

      Perhaps I should provide a hint: All Christians are priests of the order of Melchizedek. What are the restrictions on marriage for a priest?

      Perhaps you should take your own advice and let Scripture speak for itself, but it seems you might need to study a bit more first.

      Also in 1st Cor. the scripture that you quote as evidence that a Christian man cannot divorce his wife and be free of her, verse 15 says other wise.

      Again, you need to read for comprehension. I pointed out the exception in verse 15, as well as clearly stating the Christian man who is married to a Christian wife is forbidden to divorce his wife for any reason because the “exception” for immorality is no longer present. I also explained this is not an addition to the Law, but rather a restriction on the Bondservants of Christ put in place by Christ.

      Taken all together, we see an interesting pattern:

      • The wife divorced by her unbelieving husband for any reason other than sexual immorality is not actually divorced, she’s still married and any sexual relations with other men are adultery. Later becoming a Christian does not change this.
      • Any wife who leaves and divorces her husband for any reason is not actually divorced, she’s still married and any sexual relations with other men are adultery.
      • The believing wife who is divorced by her believing husband for any reason is not actually divorced and any sexual relations with other men are adultery.

      Therefore, the only women who are legitimately divorced are:

      • The wife divorced by her unbelieving husband for reason of her sexual immorality
      • The believing wife whose unbelieving husband left her
      • The unbelieving wife who left her believing husband and was divorced by him.

      Note that an unbelieving wife who leaves her Christian husband is only legitimately divorced if he actually divorces her. If he does not do so in hopes she will return to him, she is still married.

      • tteclod says:

        AT,

        I’m watching all this VERY closely and I think you erred here at the end.

        Therefore, the only women who are legitimately divorced are:
        •The wife divorced by her unbelieving husband for reason of her sexual immorality
        •The believing wife whose unbelieving husband left her
        •The unbelieving wife who left her believing husband and was divorced by him.

        A believing husband will not divorce his wife, even if she is an unbeliever. To divorce such a woman, even for immorality, is to relinquish responsibility for her and her salvation. To act otherwise is to permit schism within the church for alleged heterodoxy.

        Also, for whatever it is worth, and here I speak as an atheist, I think the permission for a believing woman to remarry if an unbelieving husband divorces or abandons her is – while you may rely upon scripture for permission – a temptation toward permanent separation when, for a living, unbelieving man, there is still an opportunity for reconciliation to God, and therefore, to his wife. Any woman who genuinely believes her (ex?)husband faces damnation for non-belief would be well-motivated to hold out every conceivable reward for his repentance.

        All that, as your Saul of Tarsus said often, is just my opinion.

  17. tteclod says:

    AT,

    Please excuse my late arrival at your party. I’ll leave this here where it’s most relevant and probably comment further elsewhere.

    You wrote:

    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.

    But that barely gets at the next analogy Jesus uses. When the disciples balk as marrying, he then adds (paraphrased), “Well, boys, there are some men born without dicks, and there are some men who suffer losing their dicks by the hands of other men, and then there are men who cut their own dicks off; that’s a pretty tough way to go through life – without a dick – but if you’re up for it, I wish you luck.”

    The way I read that passage, not only is marriage tough, it’s not preferable to the alternative Jesus suggests.

    The plan is pretty plain. Fornication is sin, so it’s off the table. Marriage isn’t mandated, but Jesus doesn’t present much hope for men who think they can remain celibate. “If your hand offends you, cut it off (yourself),” takes on a new meaning for men when we discuss fornication.

  18. @tteclod

    Interesting how the atheists can cut to the heart of things. Perhaps it’s because they don’t (emotionally at least) have a dog in the fight. A couple of things jump out at me from your comments.

    The way I read that passage, not only is marriage tough, it’s not preferable to the alternative Jesus suggests.

    We have to keep in mind the first command God gave mankind. “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.” The allowable exception to that command is the individual who dedicates their life to the kingdom in celibacy. As Paul so famously said, “It is better not to marry” but he was specifically speaking to women, although the suggestion (and that’s all it was) applies to both men and women.

    A believing husband will not divorce his wife, even if she is an unbeliever. To divorce such a woman, even for immorality, is to relinquish responsibility for her and her salvation.

    First, the salvation of the wife is not the responsibility of the husband. That’s a decision that only she can make and it’s between her and the Holy Spirit. While she is with him she (the unbelieving wife as well as the children) are sanctified by him, but not when she leaves. What part does light have with darkness?

  19. Siafu says:

    You keep jumping right over Deuteronomy 24 in order to thump on Hosea. Yes, we are commanded not to divorce and if we divorce we should be reconciled. However, if a woman becomes another man’s wife after she leaves you or even if you divorced her (in which case you caused her to commit adultery unless it was for some uncleanness) then you cannot take her back. That’s what Paul says in Romans 7. This is why Jesus had to both DIE and RESURRECT. He released her from the law of the husband pursuant to Deuteronomy 24 and was resurrected a “new man” to provide an eligible bachelor. This is why you can’t take your ex-wife back if she has married someone after you. Thousands of Christians are disobeying this command because of teachings like the one in this blog. Please make the proper distinction. Just because you must forgive them doesn’t mean you have to take them back. If you did, you would be disobeying Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

    I’m with you on polygyny (fully) and headship (mostly), but you are wrong on this one. If a wife is totally unrepentant in her whoredoms, that’s why God gave us the ability to divorce our wives. Paul wasn’t abrogating that command or giving a higher standard. It’s always been “don’t divorce” “be reconciled if possible”. Have you read the book of Jasher (i.e. “the faithful book”)? It details a situation where Abraham counseled Hagar’s son, Ishamael, to divorce his wife (do a search for the tent peg story). I encourage you to read that account.

    • This is why you can’t take your ex-wife back if she has married someone after you.

      This is where you don’t quite get what I’m saying. Deuteronomy 24:4 ONLY applies to a wife who has been legitimately divorced by her husband. Notice that in Matthew 5:31-32 Jesus makes the point that if the husband divorces her for anything other than porneia and she marries another, she commits adultery. The only way she can commit adultery is if she’s still married to her first husband because adultery requires a married woman.

      Therefore, the big take-away point is God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. Romans 7:2 and 1st Cor. 7:39 are pretty clear- a wife is bound to her husband for as long as she lives. For two confessed believers their Master has given His instruction and there is to be no divorce for any reason. Not only that, but except for the narrow exception of the unbelieving husband who leaves his believing wife, nowhere in Scripture is there any authority for a wife to divorce her husband. In fact, 1st Peter 3:1-6 makes it clear that the wife is to submit to her husband in silence regardless of his behavior and win him over with her gentle and quiet spirit.

      I think the problem you have here is two-fold. First, you are recognizing a “legal” divorce by a family court as binding even if God doesn’t, and that’s the vast majority of them. Women file over 70% of the divorces, so from the get-go you can figure that 70% of all divorces are illegitimate. All divorces between two married believers are illegitimate, regardless of the cause. Any divorce not initiated by an un-believing husband for the sexual immorality of his wife is likewise illegitimate. Within the church I think we can assume that includes over 90% of all divorces, so 9 out of 10 times when a so-called “divorced” woman purports to marry again she isn’t actually getting re-married because she already has a husband. As Jesus said, she’s committing adultery.

      Thousands of Christians are disobeying this command because of teachings like the one in this blog.

      The command of Deuteronomy 24:4 ONLY applies in cases of a legitimate divorce, in which case the two are no longer married and the woman is free to re-marry. If the “divorce” is illegitimate then they are still married and it’s no different from a man’s wife leaving him and shacking up with another guy while still married. A married woman cannot marry another man while her first husband is still alive (again, the only exception is 1st Cor. 7:15) because she is already married. The second so-called “marriage” is a sham and if she pulls her head out of her ass and returns to her husband (her only husband) he has no choice but to be reconciled to her. Why? Because he was commanded to love her as Christ loves His church, and Christ will never turn His back on a sinner who repents, confesses his sin and seeks forgiveness.

      If a wife is totally unrepentant in her whoredoms, that’s why God gave us the ability to divorce our wives.

      Under the Law, what you say is true, but not for Christians. Look at what Jesus said in Matthew 19. The first question was “What are the grounds for divorce” and Jesus said there aren’t any (“what God has joined together let no man separate.”) The Pharisees came right back at Him, asking “Then why did Moses say we could?” Jesus answered again saying “for the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted you, but from the beginning it was not this way.” However, keep in mind that there were two questions and the second one laid Deuteronomy 24:1-4 squarely before Him, so Jesus gave His ruling on that: “If any man divorces his wife for any reason other than “porneia” and marries another, he commits adultery.”

      Keep in mind that Jesus was commenting on the Law and the Law cannot change, but the instruction of no divorce permitted for married believers in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 is an *additional* restriction on Christians, not a change to the Law (which is forbidden in Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32). This additional restriction is no different from the prohibition on using prostitutes found in 1st Corinthians 6, which was also a restriction that applied only to Christians because only a Christian can join the members of Christ to a whore. The difference between the two is the restriction on using prostitutes was made by Paul with his Apostolic authority, but the prohibition on two married believers divorcing was made by Christ Himself and Paul was careful to clearly state that.

      Believe it or not, under the Law, men had the right to divorce their wives for sexual immorality as well as the right to use the services of prostitutes without penalty or sin. That changed in the New Testament, but only as prohibitions (restrictions) on Christians, not as a change to the Law, which cannot be changed.

      The Disciples understood what Jesus was saying in Matthew 19, which is why their response was “if this is the way it is between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” His response to that was “Some men are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by men and some become eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven.”

      In other words, “suck it up guys, if you marry her you’re stuck with her.”

      This is why the subject of divorce and polygyny within the church are so inextricably intertwined. Women do not have the right to sentence their husbands to sexual starvation either by denying them what is theirs within marriage or by “divorcing” them under the insane doctrine that a man cannot take another wife as long as his wife is alive because marriage is one man and one woman, only.

      • Siafu says:

        @ ArtisanalToad
        See, I agree with you on much. Let me outline my thoughts.
        1) A wife has no authority to divorce her husband. Yes, I agree.
        2) A husband mustn’t divorce his wife. Yes, I agree.
        2a) If a man divorces his wife for some uncleanness (I understand and agree with your definitions of porneia and adultery, etc.), but she remains unmarried and chaste in the interim, and then he takes her back and is reconciled, then that is totally biblical. However, if she sins and becomes another man’s when her former husband has lawfully divorced her, reconciliation becomes impossible. THAT IS MY POINT. This instruction is still valid today. We don’t just open our arms to defiled ex-wives. God forbade it and he doesn’t change.
        2b) God doesn’t recognize the divorce unless it is because of porneia. Yes, porneia isn’t the same as adultery. We agree. If a woman commits adultery, it is a capital offense and thus, why even mention divorce? She’s supposed to be dead.
        3) I understand your point about prostitutes in the Old testament and I agree with you. I’m not entirely like all those scoffers that hate your work. Now, as it pertains to 1 Corinthians 6, I’m having troubling agreeing with you. I understand that the passage is speaking of temple prostitution. Unmarried (non-temple) prostitutes are acceptable but are far from ideal and ought to be discouraged. I have not nor do I ever foresee myself partaking of this liberty. NOTE: I am willing to be wrong about this.
        4) The 1 Corinthians 7 argument doesn’t make sense to me because Paul wouldn’t be adding on new commands to the church. You, yourself admit this in other posts and in your lengthy discussions over at vox’s blog for which, sadly, you were vilified (you did very well over there btw, excellent work). Paul is simply repeating the fact that God hates divorce and Christians should seek reconciliation. This is clear when he says the command “Let her not depart from her husband” then immediately points out “But and if she depart…”. He advises that the woman remain chaste if separated from her husband. Why? Because if she didn’t, it would be adultery (death penalty).
        5) As far as I can tell, the only additional command given by Jesus was “A new command I give you: Love one another. AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, SO YOU MUST LOVE ONE ANOTHER.” Simply loving one another wasn’t a new command. Clearly, that which was new was loving even as he loved them. Paul can’t supersede him.
        6) As to Paul’s view on marriage. I think he is misunderstood. He did want people to be as him, but why? Surely marriage is honorable among all. Asceticism is preached against clearly in his letter to the Colossians. If we don’t ignore 1 Corinthians 7:26, things become clearer. Paul is giving all these commands from YHWH, and paul’s own advice (especially the advice to virgins) in light of the present distress. What distress? Why, the persecution, of course. It’s hard on families when you are fleeing for your life, etc. Women don’t even ovulate properly when they are under extreme stress or malnutrition.

        I should have been more cordial in my premier post. For that, I apologize. I’m not acting as a humble guest.

        Grace and Peace

  20. 2) A husband mustn’t divorce his wife. Yes, I agree.

    Not quite.

    Only a *non-believer* is free to *legitimately* divorce his wife for sexual immorality. A Christian husband can only divorce his wife if she is an unbeliever and refuses to live with him. A Christian wife can only divorce her husband if he is an unbeliever and refuses to live with her. All other divorces are illegitimate regardless of the reason and thus not really divorces, so the couple is still married. If the wife is still married, she cannot marry another.

    why even mention divorce? She’s supposed to be dead.

    “Let every matter be decided on the testimony of 2 or more witnesses.” In the case of adultery it would have to be a case of being caught in flagrante delicto by 2 or more witnesses. Otherwise, no death penalty. Think about Joseph and Mary. He knew he didn’t get her pregnant, yet she was, and he was going to quietly put her away. Without 2 witnesses she could not have been put to death even though she was pregnant. To put it in perspective, I have a friend that’s a prosecutor and she told me that in 24 years as a prosecuting attorney she has never seen a case in which someone was convicted of perjury. Like adultery, it happens all the time, but it’s difficult to prove.

    if she sins and becomes another man’s when her former husband has lawfully divorced her, reconciliation becomes impossible. THAT IS MY POINT

    I understand your point completely, but you are incorrect. She is not in sin because her husband legitimately divorced her and she is no longer married. I wasn’t speaking to a situation like that, my comments were directed at situations in which both husband and wife, members of the church, are confessed Christians. In the situation you describe, the legitimately divorced woman is no longer able to return to her first husband once she has remarried because she was legitimately divorced, legitimately married another and under the Law she can no longer ever return to the first husband.

    However, I think we both know that the number of divorced people in the church who fit that criteria is vanishingly small. I know because I’ve done hundreds upon hundreds of interviews in dozens of churches in many different states. (I used to travel a lot).

    Now, as it pertains to 1 Corinthians 6, I’m having troubling agreeing with you. I understand that the passage is speaking of temple prostitution.

    The Law is clear that there are to be no temple prostitutes in Israel, but it says nothing about ordinary money for sex prostitutes. The use of temple prostitutes was already forbidden as a form of idolatry (sex with the temple prostitutes played a large part in pagan religious worship) so there was no reason for Paul to mention it if your interpretation is taken and Paul did not make any mention of idolatry in the passage. Since the Law was silent on ordinary prostitutes, it makes sense to me that Paul is forbidding Christians (and only Christians because only they can join the members of Christ to a whore) from using the services of a prostitute. Carefully study the Greek on that entire passage and you’ll see what I mean.

    4) The 1 Corinthians 7 argument doesn’t make sense to me because Paul wouldn’t be adding on new commands to the church.

    Paul did not add to nor subtract from the Law, which applies to all people for all time, especially the moral law. However, Christians are servants (slaves) who were bought with a price and if the Master wants to place extra restrictions on His servants that is His prerogative. We see in 1st Cor. 6 a prohibition on the use of prostitutes by Christians made by Paul, speaking with Apostolic authority. In chapter 7 we see a prohibition on 2 married believers separating/divorcing, but Paul is careful to state that it isn’t from him, it’s from the Lord. If He wants to place restrictions on His bondservants, who are we to question that?

    We can contrast this with Romans 1:25-27, in which Paul is speaking of people who are definitely NOT Christians, people who are in rebellion against God and being punished with the wrath of God. Yet, in verse 26 Paul carefully does not make an accusation, lay down a prohibition or give a condemnation on anything the women might be doing. He is being descriptive, not proscriptive. With the men, they likewise “gave up the natural function of the woman” which is to be wives, mothers and helpmeets to their husband under his authority. In the same way, the men were refusing to marry, husband their wife and father children… however, the men added to that their lust for one another and committed indecent acts for which they received the penalty in their own bodies (Leviticus 18). Again, Paul is being descriptive of the wrath of God being poured out on an unbelieving people who refuse to honor or worship Him.

    Had Paul made any form of condemnation of whatever the women might do in verse 26, he would have been guilty of adding to the Law. He didn’t. Hopefully you see that with respect to 1st Cor. 6 he was making a restriction that applied only to Christians and in chapter 7 Christ did the same thing.

    I should have been more cordial in my premier post. For that, I apologize. I’m not acting as a humble guest.

    If you’ve seen me mix it up on Vox’s blog you should already know I’m dread ilk. The only thing I don’t tolerate well is trolls and even then, sometimes they’re fun to play with. Relax. You ask reasonable questions and make valid points.

  21. Siafu says:

    Well, I guess I’ll reread the passages concerning divorce. I’ve done that like a hundred times this year but it can’t hurt to read it again. I really don’t think it only applies to unbelievers, but I’ll take your points and reconsider my position on that. Thanks for being consistent and concerned. Just fyi, I’m a man; I’m not gay, I’m not married nor ever have been, nor am I in a relationship, nor have I ever had any type of sex with a woman. Other than my concern for what the passages say, I don’t have a dog in the fight.

    “‘Let every matter be decided on the testimony of 2 or more witnesses.’ In the case of adultery it would have to be a case of being caught in flagrante delicto by 2 or more witnesses. Otherwise, no death penalty.”

    Yes, clearly. I wasn’t advocating anything that wasn’t biblical. It is worth noting that nowadays people have no shame and will flaunt having done it or there is surveillance video so one needs no more witnesses. I understand the need for due process. The perjury thing grinds my gears. If someone commits perjury in a capital crime and it is proven, then that is also a capital crime according to the bible. One becomes partaker of another’s sins, as you know.

    “I understand your point completely, but you are incorrect. She is not in sin because her husband legitimately divorced her and she is no longer married.”

    According to you, she would be in sin. Since Paul tells a believing woman to remain chaste and be reconciled as a command from the LORD without regard to how or why she separated from her believing husband. She would be disobeying this if she married someone else and didn’t seek reconciliation, no?

    I actually know a christian couple who divorced and then remarried after both having had at least one other spouse. Then, they got “reconciled” by getting back together. They were in open sin and no one, as far as I know, has rebuked. I, they, all my friends, at the time, thought it was wonderful that “love was more powerful than divorce”. I don’t live near them anymore, nor do I know where they live and this was before I even understood the bible on this. Either, they both should be dead for openly confessing adultery before all and there being proof of them having married again. Or, they should not be re-married, as I’m unsure of the reason they divorced in the first place. Likely, it wasn’t for the biblical reason, knowing the family. We have to keep this wickedness out of the church. That is what I’m after as I’m sure you are as well. I’ve seen how you advocate for polygyny as an answer to the rampant divorce. I agree wholeheartedly with you. Likewise, to further answer the problem of adultery, I think the fear of death, along with the dread game of polygyny, would make most of them stand up straight overnight, don’t you?

    “so there was no reason for Paul to mention it if your interpretation is taken and Paul did not make any mention of idolatry in the passage.”

    Sure there is. Remember who he was writing to? They were new gentile believers in the faith and were probably, based on a comparison of his letters, the church struggling the most with worldliness. He’s having to explain to them things that they did not want to stop or would be breaking long-held traditions. The no temple prostitutes was a part of jewish faith. It’s kind of like the head covering fiasco. He was having to explain to them why women need to cover themselves, placing a biblical, jewish practice upon them that they were unfamiliar with. The temple prostitutes were by tradition and superstition to have practiced their craft unto Aphrodite even for years after the worship of Aphrodite wore out. He didn’t want them getting mixed up in that or being suspected of participating in idolatry because of the history & die-hard superstitions of that area. Further, I think the story of Samson still applies to believers and rebuts your claims here. I’m willing to be totally wrong on this, as I don’t see prostitution being of much help to the church at this time. Textually, however, I just don’t see it. I’ll closely examine the greek, as you say.

    As to the Romans 1:26 passage, I’m open to your understanding of it. I took it to be referring to anal sex, but perhaps I’m wrong. I know you’ll want to go on a tear about how anal isn’t forbidden and I’m not against you on this, but I am uncertain. Don’t feel the need to convince me.

    I found you through Dalrock’s blog, btw. Good posts. Wish I knew how I found Dalrock.

    • It’s actually nice to see someone that’s zealous for the Lord. Don’t see much of that these days.

      I actually know a christian couple who divorced and then remarried after both having had at least one other spouse. Then, they got “reconciled” by getting back together. They were in open sin and no one, as far as I know, has rebuked.

      Imagine you are a pastor of a large church and you’re confronted with the situation of the couple you described, who sincerely took the advise and counsel of the leaders of the church they were attending in doing what they did.

      According to the Bible, only the wife was committing adultery. The husband simply took another wife, but in divorcing her he violated his instruction and thus was in sin. According to your narrative the wife has now properly reconciled to her husband (as she should) and it sounds like her husband has forgiven her of her sin. You didn’t mention whether his second wife left/divorced him or whether he divorced her but it doesn’t matter. He’s still married to her (assuming she was eligible to marry him in the first place- if she was illegitimately divorced from her first husband then he was committing adultery with her).

      It appears what you’re describing is they did exactly what they should have done in reconciling with each other. I think the real problem comes with the semantics of this and if we described the illegitimate divorce as “separation” then it would be far easier to see the true situation. Using the word “divorce” implies a legitimacy to the act that seldom exists and in doing so it clouds the issue and introduces confusion, as is evidenced by this conversation.

      Keep in mind that the vast majority of churches maintain as doctrine things that do not agree with scripture and in some cases are in violation of scripture. In fact, many church leaders encourage the study of Scripture only up to a certain point, and any time established doctrine is questioned the person asking the questions is tagged as “divisive” and hammered with the idea they are to submit to the leaders appointed over them.

      Many times wisdom requires knowing when and where to apply a bit of grace to a situation. I have studied the subject of marriage, divorce and sexual morality for years and it took a long time to finally grasp what the Bible says because in some cases, what the Bible doesn’t say is as important, if not more important, than what it does say. Most pastors and elders within the church do not have the slightest clue as to what the Bible actually says on these subjects.

      An example of that is the marital bed. God chose to only place two restrictions on the marital bed- no intercourse while wife is menstruating and no intercourse during the proscribed period after childbirth (Leviticus 12). By making those restrictions God demonstrates that He chose not to place any further restrictions, thus the complete absence of any description of any particular sex act speaks loudly for those who have perception.

      This observation has to be juxtaposed with the early church’s vehement disdain for any form of sex, because in regulating the marital bed (without authority) they went into great detail on which acts, positions and attitudes were forbidden and sinful (in violation of God’s Word) to the point that they claimed as doctrine that a man having sex with his wife in the approved manner (PIV only, missionary position, minimal clothing removed, as fast as possible, within the first hour after dark or the first hour before dawn, not on a feast day, holy day or Sunday), purely for pleasure, was a venal sin.

      Why, the question might be asked, didn’t God simply say “Thou shall take only one wife to your bed, you shall not lie with more than one wife that they might see their nakedness. And when you lie with your wife you shall enter unto her only in the manner which shall produce a child”

      That would have made the church so much happier, but God chose not to do that. The absence of any mention of sex acts compared to the lengthy list of prohibited relationships leads to the observation that God cares far more about the relationship of the people connecting their plumbing than how the plumbing gets connected.

      The husband is the head of his house and in any situation in which God was silent the husband is free to make a private ruling for his own house in accordance with his personality and desires along with the personality/desires of his wife/wives.

      The no temple prostitutes was a part of jewish faith.

      No, it was a specific violation of the Law, Deuteronomy 23:17

      “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute.”

      If you study game (and I encourage you to) you’ll learn that women compete with each other as naturally as a duck takes to water. What is known as “dread game” is provoking a woman’s fear that she may lose you, although it must be done subtly. Women don’t want a man who will cheat on them, but they very much want a man who could cheat on them. When a wife observes other women find her husband attractive, she finds herself more attracted to him (known as pre-selection bias) and she becomes more attentive to him because she’s unconsciously competing with the other women. This is why one of the most powerful words a man has in his relationship toolkit is “Next!” The problem with socially imposed monogamy is it robs the husband of the ability to say “next” within the context of marriage and thus shifts all the power in the relationship to the woman. The man doesn’t have to take another wife for this to work, merely having the option to do so is enough, in the same way that women use the threat of no-fault divorce rape to control their husbands.

      The take-away point to that is to be the man that women find attractive. It sounds like you’re young (in your 20’s I’d guess) so it wouldn’t hurt you to take 2 or 3 years to hit the gym to develop a masculine physique and study game to learn how to deal with women in a masculine and confident manner. One of the major points of Rollo Tomassi’s book “The Rational Male” (which I encourage you to read before even *looking* at another woman) is women would rather *share* a high value man than have a monogamous relationship with a faithful low-value man. Again, become the high value man.

      Ironically, the structure of a polygynous marriage works toward stability rather than instability because the structure itself makes the man more high-value. Within the marriage the wives are competing for his attention and the fact the other wives find their husband attractive makes him more attractive.

      The husband in such a relationship has to remain aloof and not open up emotionally (which is an attraction-killer), which subtly displays dominance and makes him more attractive. The wives can get their emotional needs met with each other and will be happier if they do. Unlike a monogamous marriage, a polygynous marriage requires the husband to take an active hand in managing the relationships between his wives, which requires that he be more dominant (which, again, makes him more attractive to the wives). One aspect of that is having all the wives in bed together on a regular basis, because doing so destroys the hierarchies they will try to establish with each other and reinforces the idea that the husband is in charge and they are all equally under his authority. Remember the curse: women will seek to overcome and control. If the husband allows it they will hold him in contempt, so he must rule over them and that’s actually a lot easier (for a high-value man) in a polygynous marriage than in a monogamous marriage.

      The only real problem with a polygynous marriage at this point is getting it started, but sooner or later I’ll post an essay about that which is sure to offend just about everyone.

  22. Siafu says:

    Thanks for your generous response. I’ve already read most of your blog posts this past weekend so much of what you’ve said has been a rehashing. Notwithstanding this, our conversation has been instructive. I will finish reading the rest of your posts as time permits. I see clearly now that I was having a problem with semantics mixed with an amount of plain disagreement. You’ve given me much to think about, so I think I’ll refrain from further commenting.

    One wouldn’t say I’ve studied the game aspect and “dread ilk” is for me new vocabulary, yet since reading this and other blogs and studying my bible, it is impossible to avoid the realization that woman do suffer from the curse of Eve. Someone, perhaps it was you, put it this way: “hypergamous solipsism.” That stings but sure rings true. Lately, I see even my mother in an entirely different way. I’ll look into this “rational male” book since you recommended it.

    Lastly, I want to commend you again on taking a stand. There is so much adding to and taking away from the Father’s words that goes on today it’s a work of God that anyone can think straight. Keep fighting for his words.

    Grace & Peace

    • Someone, perhaps it was you, put it this way: “hypergamous solipsism.” That stings but sure rings true. Lately, I see even my mother in an entirely different way. I’ll look into this “rational male” book since you recommended it.

      What you’re describing is known as the “bitter taste of the red pill” and it occurs when you’ve internalized the facts and recognize that all women are like that (AWALT). Rollo professes to be a Christian but leans strongly toward a human bio-diversity (HBD) and evolutionary psychology point of view. He points to hypergamic solipsism as an evolutionary trait, I view it in terms of the curse. Regardless, we each arrive at the same point.

      In terms of game, Dalrock’s blog presents evidence (whole heaping mounds of it) of women’s innate solipsism and hypergamy, especially within the church. Rollo ( http://therationalmale.com ) is the philosopher/theoretician who has spent many years putting together the theory behind the real world observations of how women really behave and why. Heartiste ( https://heartiste.wordpress.com/ ) presents the nuts and bolts of game with practical application and field reports.

      I can remember years ago the long discussions on Dalrocks blog about whether women had agency. The fact that quite a few well-educated and logical men debated the issue should give you pause with respect to the AWALT question. Another topic from years ago was whether game was appropriate for Christian men. I think that the issue of whether Christian men should learn game is settled (they should) but the question of whether women actually have agency is still up for debate and Scripture tends to side with the argument that they don’t.

      The problem for Christian men with respect to game is the foundations and all the early research on game came from Pick-Up Artists (PUA’s) who were simply trying to get laid. That, quite naturally, did not sit well within the moral spectrum of the vast majority of Christian men and there was resistance. It is within that context that I’ve been arguing the major points that the Bible has no problem with polygyny and female-female sexual contact, while the Bible prohibits 2 or more married, confessed believers from getting divorced.

      On one hand, I argue from Scripture, and on the other hand I argue that not only does a reasonable reading of Scripture support what I’m saying but virtually all of what is known as “red pill” wisdom supports my argument as well. The same cannot be said of traditional church teachings because not only does the Bible not support said teachings but they demonstrably don’t work in the real world. It’s getting to the point that mostly all I do is irritate people because they know they can’t refute what I’m saying even though they really, really want to.

      Recommended Reading List:

      Understanding Women and Maintaining Relationships
      “The Rational Male” by Rollo Tomassi.
      “The Rational Male: Preventative Medicine” by Rollo Tomassi
      “Married Man Sex Life” by Athol Kay

      Becoming A High Value Man
      “How To Become An Alpha Male” by John Alexander
      “The Way of Men” by Jack Donovan
      “The 4-Hour Work Week” by Tim Ferris
      “30 Days of Discipline” by Victor Pride

      Game (PUA)
      http://yareallyarchive.com/

      Written by an unrepentant PUA, YaReally, it’s graphic, profoundly eye-opening expose of what women *can* really be like under the right circumstances. Start with “All Girls Are Sluts” and be prepared for the bitter taste of the red pill. This guy is not a Christian and doesn’t believe in God, but hold your nose if necessary and see what he has to say. It’s somewhat like doing a post-mortem… the cadaver stinks but one learns a lot by doing the exam.

      http://www.rooshv.com/

      Roosh has likewise been an unrepentant PUA but he’s finally banged enough women that he’s beginning to realize that there’s more to life than having sex with random women. Years worth of game material and an interesting example of a man growing up, finally realizing the decisions he’s made when he let his penis do the thinking have consequences.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s