Sexual Authority and Sanctification

What does it mean to “yield authority over one’s body to one’s spouse”?

Readership: All
Theme: Masculine Authority and Responsibility
Length: 2,100 words
Reading Time: 12 minutes

Sexual Authority in Marriage

There has been an intermittently ongoing debate about the interpretation of 1 Corintians 7:3-5.

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.  And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.  Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (NKJV)

In the original Greek, the verb, ἐξουσιάζω (exousiazó) translated as “authority” means to actively exercise control over, or to master the object.  The words, “over the body” (τοῦ σώματος), means to be master of the body, i.e. to have full and entire authority over the body, to hold the body subject to one’s will.

If I were to put this into profanely crass, but easily relatable language, it would be, “I know how to make you come, and if I want to make you come, then as sure as I’ve got a boner, you’re gonna come as hard and as long as I please!  (And you’re gonna shiver and quiver and be grateful for it!)”

I will go a step further to state that it should be the goal of every married person to master their mate’s body in this way. Doing so would require mutual humility and trust.

Controversy over Sexual Authority

Doug Wilson has been taken to the carpet over his interpretation of this passage, specifically about his art of walking a fine line between culture and scripture. A couple Manospherians have done the work of sorting through his stance in the following posts.

Deep Strength’s commentary on the passage in question is thus.

“The intent of the passage starts in verse 3 where each spouse to fulfill their marital duty to the other. Thus, verse 4 speaks that each spouse should rightfully give their spouse sex when they desire it. Verse 5 continues along this theme of not depriving each other except for a special situation where both agree to it for spiritual purposes.”

Obviously, this passage of scripture is most pertinent to those couples in which one is raging with desire for a spouse who is not so interested in the cuddly nuptials, and of course, it is the cold-blooded, hard-hearted spouse who would think of it as a dry duty.  So DS (and presumably St. Paul as well) is addressing this person specifically. It is appropriate, because this is an all-too-common situation these days, unfortunately.

In response to Wilson’s stance, Deep Strength goes on to write,

“It’s an absolutely contradictory reading of the passage to suggest that husbandly authority over the wife’s body and the wifely authority over the husband’s body means that she should have sex with [her husband] but her authority over [his] body means she can stop [him] from that.”

I fully agree on this point, but Wilson, FMP, and DS are barking up the wrong tree. I’ll explain why in the second point below.

The crux of this debate lies in the differences between (1) what IS, (2) what one Should Do, and (3) the way it Ought to Be.  I’ll go into each of these viewpoints and let the readers hash out the details in the comments.

1. What IS

Regular readers are familiar with how husbands and wives sexually defraud each other, and that wives defraud husbands with much greater frequency.  I know many readers struggle with this reality, including myself at times. It is what it is.

There’s a big difference between structures of authority in theory, and implementing that authority in practice. Sure, we could say that sexual authority over one’s spouse is a “right” or an “entitlement” that married couples should have, just because 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 says so, and that would be correct. But saying the words “I do” is not a magic cure-all that automatically establishes one’s sexual authority in marriage just because the Bible says that’s how it should be.

The simple fact is that reality does not match theory, because of humans’ fallen nature.

  • In reality, individuals yield to the sexual authority of those whom they’re not married to (e.g. adultery, fornication, etc.) and thereby defile themselves within the context of marriage.
  • In reality, married people neglect their sexual authority (e.g. wives cutting their hair, gaining weight, “letting themselves go”, etc.).
  • In reality, married people abuse their sexual authority (e.g. sexual obfuscation, transactional sex, withholding sex, etc.).
  • In reality, most wives will do everything in their power to undermine their husband’s authority.

These are all examples of disobedience and sin, which work against the proper structure of authority outlined in the Bible.

This unavoidable fact of reality is why I wouldn’t say that sexual authority is an “entitlement” of marriage, and calling it a “right” misses the point because this view is self-centered and does not recognize that one purpose of marriage is to glorify God.

Before and after marriage, couples are faced with the task of making the theory, the Biblically ordained structure of authority, including sexual authority, into a reality. This is what Philippians 2:12 means, to “…work out your own salvation…”. The believer has to work through these challenges in order to consolidate his domain — a domain that God intends for us to have if we are faithful and obedient.

Furthermore, God calls us to be obedient, not only out of will or mere mental assent, but also from the heart (Luke 10:27). To me, that means our obedience to the structure of authority in marriage should be visceral.

2. What One Should Do

This is the viewpoint that has received the most airplay by Wilson, his detractors, Full Metal Patriarchy, and Christianity and Masculinity in the posts cited above.

The main point is that one should have sex with one’s spouse whenever he/she desires it, and should not reject the spouse’s advances.  The corollary is that one should not leave their spouse disappointed in this area, as this would create a breeding ground for bitterness and resentment at best and adultery at worst.  This is the most obvious interpretation of the scripture, and of course it is the right thing to do. However, this poses a significant problem to wives lacking agency, as this would require a willful volition to engage in sexual congress whether or not one is “in the mood”.

Wilson’s detractors (who are mostly complementarians and churched up feminists) are quick to jump on the “willful volition” aspect of this approach, and insist that they cannot be forced to act against their will.  To humor this argument for a moment, I’ll agree that it is generally a bad idea to force someone to do something against their will, as this tends to kill the soul of a person. But what Wilson’s detractors cannot seem to fathom is that willing submission to God’s directives brings grace and love which have the effect of softening a person’s heart and bringing them into line with God’s will.

So it would seem that these detractors (who are arguing against the scriptures) are one or more of the following.

  • They’re too proud to concede the argument and do more to please their honey hungry husbands.
  • They’re too lazy to do the hard work of implementing their willpower.
  • They’re stubbornly resisting God’s grace in their marriage.
  • They’re afraid to trust God with their marriage.
  • They’re unwilling to give God a chance.
  • Some combination of the above.

But no matter what their motivations might be, the detractors’ arguments successfully sidestep the topic and crash the debate into a piddly quarrel over structures of authority, and just as we can expect, how that authority reviles gender equahluty and is therefore morally wrong (viz. “misogyny” and “r@pe” according to the Feminist religion).

This concept of sexual authority is based on a military command style of authority in which the wife is considered an equal in command. Of note, a military command style of authority appears prominently in Power vs. Fear ethical systems, and women gravitate towards Power vs. Fear systems.

Furthermore, there is always an underlying assumption that horny husbands are gnawing at the bit to find some way to force their wives to have sex with them against their will. Only the most astute observers will recognize this subtle twist, which is a form of projection.  Now, I don’t believe the vast majority of husbands are like this, but are rather wishing and waiting for the flames of feminine passion they received at the beginning of the marriage to reignite somehow.  But on the other hand, I suspect that if some husbands were a Chad more dominant, then this would allow them to pass through some of the wives’ Alpha filters, enough to get the bed creaking.

Anyway, if we don’t recognize this derailment then we’ve lost the Frame war.

3. The way it Ought to Be

This is the viewpoint that has been completely absent in the previous discussions.

The idea here is a situation in which the husband and wife are so consumed with desire for one another that they can’t control their sexual urges for each other.  They are literally going together at every opportunity, and making opportunity when there is none. Knocking socks on the regular is absolutely necessary for marital sanctification, as this is the essential constitution of a marriage. Sexual attraction and desirability is an important part of this, but not always necessary, especially as the couple grows older.

You probably won’t hear this truth anywhere else, but it is impossible to discuss sanctification without also discussing sex and the stewardship of sexuality.  I say this on the basis of the following scripture passage.

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.  For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.  Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 (NKJV)

Sanctification, for many married people, requires that spouses have the right to the “ownership” of each other’s bodies, and this naturally includes sexual and reproductive access and the ecstatic joys thereof. How one dresses and being sexually desirable to each other in general is part of that.  Verse 4 says, “each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor”.  Attraction can be nurtured and developed or else it can be abused through sin or by failing to nurture it. It is the Christian married person’s right and responsibility to control all this.  Again, see verse 4, and verse 6 says, “no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter”.  Failing to make yourself as comely to your spouse as you can may be taken by the spouse as a form of marital fraud.  I’ll appeal to the married reader’s interests as proof.

If the reader will review 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and the definitions offered in the beginning of this post, then it is apparent that St. Paul is illustrating this ideal state of marriage, and he’s also saying that couples shouldn’t try to resist or undermine this ideal interaction but should instead try to create and sustain it as much as possible.

In the past, I have attempted to describe this concept in terms of “sexual authority”, but this has not gained much traction among readers.  I’ll briefly recount this argument.

True authority is defined by the power that one has over others. This power does not necessarily lie in making one do as another says, as by force of will, but rather, it is a power that lies in the spirit of the person (e.g. charisma), such that one naturally gravitates to one’s Frame, and wants to comply. Thus, sexual authority is the visceral power one has over others to be desired in a sexual manner. As such, sexual authority corresponds roughly to the SMV scale, but it is amplified in marriage (e.g. wife goggles).

Charismatic Chads have abundant sexual authority, even over women they’re not married to. The proof is in the prodigious püssy, even though this is a sinful abuse of said authority. Whereas, a husband who won’t work, won’t lift, and resorts to p0rn, and a wife who is crass, disrespectful, and lets herself go, are losing/abusing their sexual authority over their spouse in the marriage. Again, I’ll leave it to the married reader to relate to this sentiment.

Closing Statements

The fulfillment of sexual authority that a husband or wife has over their spouse is an ideal for the married person to strive after. Done well, this should usher in sanctification and God’s glory in the marriage. To some, it will come naturally. To most, they will have to make a diligent effort to be obedient to God in order to attain a state of sanctification. Too many will neglect this marital duty altogether, and reap the bitter consequences thereof.

Prince Asbel (at Full Metal Patriarchy) had a conniption when I suggested these ideas (described in Part 3 above) in a discussion at Christianity and Masculinity, saying that this would require one to be sexually desirable to one’s spouse in order to be obedient to God, and that sexual desirability can be lost, thereby rendering one unable to be obedient to God.  I disagreed because this is a bad interpretation of my stance. It is bad take because he is assuming that sexual attraction is the central aspect of the relationship and essentially juxtaposes what Ought to Be as a legalistic requirement for what IS, instead of an ideal to shoot for. I invited him to debate the topic, but he declined.  In spite of his hard pass, I’ve offered my arguments above, and his response is still welcomed.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Agency, Attraction, Charisma, Churchianity, Clothing, Complementarianism, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Denying/Witholding Sex, Desire, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Discipline and Molding, Enduring Suffering, Ethical Systems, Female Power, Feminism, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Fundamental Frame, Handling Rejection, Identity, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Joy, Love, Male Power, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Personal Domain, Personal Presentation, Power, Psychology, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Self-Concept, Self-Control, Sex, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Sphere of Influence, The Power of God. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Sexual Authority and Sanctification

  1. thedeti says:

    “Wilson’s detractors (who are mostly complementarians and churched up feminists) are quick to jump on the “willful volition” aspect of this approach, and insist that they cannot be forced to act against their will. To humor this argument for a moment, I’ll agree that it is generally a bad idea to force someone to do something against their will, as this tends to kill the soul of a person. But what Wilson’s detractors cannot seem to fathom is that willing submission to God’s directives brings grace and love which have the effect of softening a person’s heart and bringing them into line with God’s will.”

    This is the female version of “fake it till you make it”. Recommended only for wives. Wise women tell young wives, “have lots and lots of sex even if sometimes you don’t feel like it. Keep doing it until you feel like it. The more you do it, the more you’ll feel like it.”

    How much sex should a couple have? As much as the person with the higher libido wants to have. Men are more forgiving of sexual rejection by a wife than wives are forgiving of husbands’ sexual rejection. A husband who gets rejected will keep trying for a time. A wife who gets rejected will give up after one or two initiation attempts. Women just cannot handle rejection.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “This is the female version of “fake it till you make it”. Recommended only for wives. Wise women tell young wives, “have lots and lots of sex even if sometimes you don’t feel like it. Keep doing it until you feel like it. The more you do it, the more you’ll feel like it.”

      This highlights the importance of a woman’s marital vow of obedience to her husband and to God. I believe that a husband’s insistence on obedience has the long term effect of making the wife see her husband as her “alpha”, for lack of a better term, and makes it easier for him to exercise the marital authority over his wife that should be.

      For the typical man, the more pleasure he finds in his wife and the less contentious she is, the more patient and loving he’ll be towards her. That tenderness towards her, as long as it is continually coupled with his boundary of her obedience to him, often results in a woman desiring him more. Basically, following God’s design for authority in marriage is the way to build the emotional connection that fuels marital passion.

      Liked by 4 people

    • info says:

      If there is genuine trauma from childhood or medical issues. Then the wife ought to tell the Husband. So that can be sorted out.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. thedeti says:

    “But no matter what their motivations might be, the detractors’ arguments successfully sidestep the topic and crash the debate into a piddly quarrel over structures of authority, and just as we can expect, how that authority reviles gender equahluty and is therefore morally wrong…”

    This is a prime symptom of women who’ve married men they’re not sexually attracted to.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      Seriously. Women in their 30’s are likely settling and less likely to be going for her Husband due to genuine attraction.

      If she chose her husband in her early 20’s, then its very likely she has the hots for him.

      Like

  3. caterpillar345 says:

    3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.

    Perhaps an additional perspective is: to the degree that we as individuals (both men and women) in a Christian community don’t possess our vessels in sanctification and not in passion of lust (i.e. sexually immoral behavior with people who we don’t marry), especially as young people, we take advantage of and defraud our brothers/sisters who eventually do marry by taking some of the intimacy/sexual authority that should be rightfully theirs. This slowly chips away at the overall shalom and trust in the community. Of course, this can be overcome to some degree by God’s grace and Christian charity towards each other. But the practical consequences remain, nonetheless.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. okrahead says:

    “Wilson’s detractors (who are mostly complementarians and churched up feminists) are quick to jump on the “willful volition” aspect of this approach, and insist that they cannot be forced to act against their will. To humor this argument for a moment, I’ll agree that it is generally a bad idea to force someone to do something against their will, as this tends to kill the soul of a person…”

    One wonders, would these same people object to a man being forced to work to support his family? After all, forcing someone to work against his will does smack as being a bit of a slave-driver, now doesn’t it?

    Well, of course we can force a man to work to support his family, and punish him if he does not do so.

    So, is it only duties of the husband that can be forced, and only husbands who can be punished if reticent in performing their duties?

    And will I be excommunicated just for asking?

    Liked by 5 people

    • thedeti says:

      This attitude has made me wonder: What responsibilities do women think wives have to husbands? Wives, do you believe you owe husbands anything? Do you believe you have obligations to the men you married? What obligations do you believe you have?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        Girls just wanna have fun.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        Is this a trick question? Or just a hypothetical one?

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        E –

        “Is this a trick question? Or just a hypothetical one?”

        Mrs. Apostle did not think she had responsibilities to me as a husband. Her mindset was that I chose her, she was who she was and did what she did and what I wanted didn’t matter because we were equals. If thedeti’s questions had been seriously posed to her years ago there would have only been strong independent sassy replies. My observation is that her past attitude is the norm because exceedingly few women are taught that they will owe their husbands obedience, reverence and their very bodies for pleasure and procreation. My guess is that if you asked 100 marriage age women, even here in the more conservative South, what obligations they would have to their future husband, 90+ of them would have looks of confusion/disgust on their faces or admit they’d never considered the concept before.

        Liked by 3 people

      • naturallyaspirated says:

        The village commoner should say a prayer of thanks every night that he was lucky enough to marry The Princess. All she has to do is exist and let others treat her the way royalty ought to be treated. All the obligations rest on the side of those lucky enough to be in her presence.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        I’m being deadly serious, Elspeth.

        Yes, RPA, same answer for Mrs. deti. If you had asked Mrs. deti what responsibilities she had to me as my wife when we were newlyweds, about the only response you would have gotten would be “not to have sex with other men”. As she saw it , her only duty to me was not to have sex with other men. (Notice I didn’t say “sexual fidelity” here, because “sexual fidelity” would mean a duty to have sex with me.)

        That truly is what women think they owe their men. Just “don’t have sex with other men” (like I used to)….

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        @ RPA:

        I wasn’t being snarky. I was wondering if deti was actually looking for an answer, or making a point.

        I owe my husband everything I promised him at the wedding (love, honor, and obey). I owe him gratitude for feeding me, raising my standard of living from what I grew up in, protecting me, giving me children, loving me, and all the stuff that is too small to recall on the spot.

        Forget about “owing”. Owing is baseline, minimal, the least I can do. Marriage has certain trajectories. Early on, you do what you’re supposed to do because it’s new, honeymoon love, and you want to do it. Then you do what you’re supposed to do as a wife because you’re supposed to do it.
        However, after a while (15, 20 years maybe?), there should be a transition that goes far beyond what you owe your husband. At least it did for me. No more “owe” and “should”. No more “supposed to”.

        If two married Christians do not reach a point of grateful, gracious, eagerness attached to the ways we love our spouse, something has gone wrong.
        We’re in the “How can I love you more?” (from SAM) or “How can I love you by making your life easier as you carry the burden of leading and providing for us?” (from Els).

        I know the standard line for how and why we are this way, but God is the source of it. Why are we asking God for everything under the sun but not for eyes to see our spouses through the eyes of love?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Elspeth

        from your lips to God’s ears. Most women just don’t feel this way about their husbands. Most women come to marriage with the attitude “he owes me everything; I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to do”.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Sharkly says:

    Martin Luther wrote:

    “It was for this reason that God commanded in the law [Deut. 22:22] that adulterers be stoned, that they might not have to face this question. The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death, for whoever commits adultery has in fact himself already separated/departed and is considered as one dead. […] Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death.”

    That sounds to me like God’s earthly final solution for adulterous and defrauding mates. Now we just have to figure out how to get there from here. Anything less than that is still a White-Knighting half measure, and guys simping to appease M’lady. While the path there might be taken in incremental steps, that is where we need to arrive, to honor God’s law and God’s holy union of marriage which is only to be separated by death.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Derek Ramsey says:

    “The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death, for whoever commits adultery has in fact himself already separated/departed and is considered as one dead….Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty….For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death.”

    This is the same kind of delusional take that led to the Magisterial Protestants murdering Anabaptist families (e.g. burning alive, drowning) for heresy.

    Not having sex does not dissolve a marriage. It is not divorce, nor is it of the permitted type even if it were. No man (or woman) may separate what God has cleaved together.

    Like

    • Sharkly says:

      There is a great difference between not having sex by agreement, and not having sex because of some severe inability, and not having sex because of willfully rejecting your mate and thereby intentionally breaking your vow during a prolonged period of infidelity and willful sexually immoral defrauding.

      We probably disagree on capital punishment.
      If you agree that certain marriage violations such as adultery, and some instances of fornication, are commanded by God to be punishable by death, then it only makes sense that other marriage violations in that same class and representing that same degree of betrayal and defrauding would naturally be due the same remedy.

      If you feel a marriage is a piece of paper issued by a state, or a status granted by a church, then perhaps your wife can deny you and those things could still appear in order, and those who issued them might remain none the wiser.
      However, if you see marriage as being a sexual union, consummated through sex, as the earthly flesh is yoked together by God at that moment, then, in fact, that utmost rejection of your mate and that complete withdrawal from your sexual union and the pulling out from your yoking does constitute an unlawful separation and a willful disavowal performed every bit as much in the presence of the One who joined you together as your marriage’s original consummation.
      Frigidity is a direct repudiation of the mode by which God united the two flesh into one, it is the demonstrated desire for discharge from your marital obligation unilaterally enacted. To deny that such a sexually immoral defrauding is insufficient to constitute a marital breach of covenant before God is to deny how and why the flesh is first joined together by God. And God’s institution of marriage is only properly breached through death. Relieve the covenant breakers of the life they swore to their mate, that they now fraudulently seek to retract. It is only right and holy that they should so be kept to their covenant that they will not fraudulently separate their flesh until their death.

      The martyring of my Anabaptist forefathers was not on the basis of their having defrauded others. By wrongly connecting holy and pious Anabaptist martyrs to frigid defrauding wives you unnecessarily throw shade on your own ancestors.

      Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “The martyring of my Anabaptist forefathers was not on the basis of their having defrauded others. By wrongly connecting holy and pious Anabaptist martyrs to frigid defrauding wives you unnecessarily throw shade on your own ancestors.”

        You’ve drawn the wrong conclusion from my analogy by focusing on the victim and not the perpetrator (Luther). The Romanists and Magisterial Protestants have one key thing in common: the use of State violence (i.e. civil government) to enforce religious law. Luther—who started the Protestant Reformation—naturally was fine with this, as your quote shows.

        Now compare this to the Anabaptists who outright refused citizenship, military service, and any participation in government. This is an early non-secular form of separation of church and state. Consider also what Catacomb Resident said on Christian Mysticism: “One of the pillars of [Christian mysticism] is detachment from this world (disentanglement).” This is, incidentally, one of the key principles of many Anabaptists, likely deriving in part from the influence of the German mystics. You see this most strongly in the Hutterites, Amish, and plain Mennonites, among others.

        We are not Jews and we do not live in a sacrificial system. Attempting to highly selectively apply an archaic form of civil governance and sacrificial religious system—that was never intended for Gentiles—is questionable at best. There is no way you can do it correctly, nor should you even try. It only leads to atrocities, like the one Luther suggested.

        Mosaic law was based on lex talionis, the legalistic application of which Jesus explicitly repudiated in the Sermon on the Mount, one of the Anabaptist’s foundational scriptures. We are Christians, not Jews.

        Now to your point:

        “There is a great difference between not having sex by agreement, and not having sex because of some severe inability, and not having sex because of willfully rejecting your mate and thereby intentionally breaking your vow during a prolonged period of infidelity and willful sexually immoral defrauding.”

        None of this necessitates the death penalty.

        “We probably disagree on capital punishment.”

        I’m glad you brought this up. The principle of capital punishment comes from God himself: “from each human being…I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being”. While the death penalty was a Mosaic civil penalty for a variety of infractions, before Mosaic law its primary purpose was to satisfy the blood debt for someone who had taken a life. It remains so today. It is incorrect to equivocate on capital punishment as retribution for the taking of another life with the taking of life for other offenses. The former is a core matter of divine justice, the latter is a matter of civil governance.

        “If you agree that certain marriage violations such as adultery, and some instances of fornication, are commanded by God to be punishable by death…then it only makes sense that other marriage violations in that same class”

        The punishment for adultery required the death of two individuals. Fornication, like adultery, is about having illicit sex, not failing to have licit sex. We don’t kill people for not doing something. That’s insane.

        If your standard is that all sin deserves death, then every man, woman, and child should be executed by the State. It’s not the State’s job to be God. That’s God’s job, and even he doesn’t kill everyone who rightly deserves it (e.g. King David).

        Sin is damaging. Sin is destructive. Sin is painful. Sin is terrible. But we don’t just kill people because they’ve sinned.

        But the bottom line is that the Bible is clear about what constitutes a valid divorce and defrauding your spouse isn’t included. There are specific things for which a Christian is permitted to do in these cases, and that almost always means either reunification (if possible) or (possibly permanent) separation. This is, incidentally, the traditional Anabaptist position. No matter what you say about how terrible a sin it is, and it is terrible, it doesn’t constitute divorce nor constitute grounds for death.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        “Attempting to highly selectively apply an archaic form of civil governance and sacrificial religious system—that was never intended for Gentiles—is questionable at best. There is no way you can do it correctly, nor should you even try.”

        LOL Perhaps you are unaware of the Noahide/Noahic law given for all men, by God, long before there were Jews, or even their father Abraham. Although we are not Jews, we are men, sons of Noah, to whom that law was given and still applies. Jesus specifically said that He did not come to do away with his Father’s law, but to do/accomplish it. So the seven laws of Noah still apply to all of Noah’s descendants.

        Not to worship idols.
        Not to curse God.
        Not to commit murder.
        Not to commit adultery or sexual immorality.
        Not to steal.
        Not to eat flesh torn from a living animal. (with the life blood still in it)
        To establish courts of justice.

        The first four were/are all capital sins. And all seven of these commands were repeated in the New Testament, issued again to the church.

        What will Jesus say to many who call Him “Lord, Lord” and claim to have done many good works in His name? “I never knew you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness“.
        It sounds to me like our eternal Judge still has laws to judge us by. Ya might wanna pay attention to them. God made laws for us Gentiles too. He did not commit us all over to lawlessness, but provided us with the 7 laws given to Noah and his three sons and to their descendants in perpetuity.

        Matthew 5:18(Jesus speaking) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

        “Hear me now, believe me later.” ~ Hans & Franz

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @Sharkly

        “…Noahic law…”

        All the laws you stated—including sexual immorality—condemn actions that people do, not things that people don’t do. The idea that inaction is a violation of the core laws of God punishable by the death penalty is not supported by direct evidence.

        There is, however, evidence to the contrary, including implied cases where husbands did not have sex with one of their wives, because they favored one exclusively over another. In no cases were any husbands executed. While there exists no explicit law anywhere in the Bible that supports the death penalty for not having sex, there are examples where the death penalty was withheld for capital offenses. There is also no recorded case where God demanded a wife be put to death for refusing to have sex. The idea is absurd.

        It is unclear to me why you are citing specific “Noahic Laws”, the list of seven of which are themselves extra-biblical extrapolations which do not exist in that form anywhere in scripture. Jewish Talmudic tradition, especially that of the second century, has no bearing on this discussion. Even so, Gentiles were not put to death for such crimes anyway. To wit:

        “In practice, Jewish law makes it very difficult to apply the death penalty. No record exists of a gentile having been put to death for violating the seven Noahide laws. Some of the categories of capital punishment recorded in the Talmud are recorded as having never been carried out.”

        The Jews—and God himself in the case of David—understood that the death penalty was authorized but not mandatory even for the worst of violations and that it largely applied to Jews, not Gentiles, but that ultimately the right to blood is God’s alone. As Jesus noted by hyperbole in Matthew 5-7, man is not to be heavily burdened with meting out God’s retributive justice, but rather to primarily focus their attention inward.

        “Depart from me you who practice lawlessness”

        Paul writes extensively about those bound under Jewish law and those who are not. Jesus himself distinguished between civil laws and the deeper moral laws of God when he excused David’s eating of the showbread in Mark 2, showing that obedience to God is not the same as obedience to God’s law. The Sermon on the Mount demonstrates that lawlessness comes from the intentions of the heart (obedience to God), not legalistic following of directives (obedience to God’s law). As you noted in another thread:

        “Jesus was hyperbolically illustrating to folks like the Pharisees who thought they were blameless before the law and before God, that it is humanly impossible to be without sin”

        Indeed, the Pharisees thought lawlessness was not following all the laws exactly as written. Jesus even praised their diligent obedience to the law as something to be emulated, but condemned them because they didn’t follow the spirit of the law.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        “All the laws you stated—including sexual immorality—condemn actions that people do, not things that people don’t do. The idea that inaction is a violation of the core laws of God punishable by the death penalty is not supported by direct evidence.”

        Just for clarity’s sake, I’ll point out that the seventh Noahic commandment, “to establish courts of justice”, is a prescriptive command and not a prohibitive one.

        “We don’t kill people for not doing something. That’s insane.
        … The idea that inaction is a violation of the core laws of God punishable by the death penalty is not supported by direct evidence.”

        Are we saved from hell by our own efforts? God Himself decreed death on all people as the wages of even the least of sins, and He casts folks into eternal hellfire for not having faith in Him and His Son and for not reconciling ourselves to Him through availing ourselves of His Son Jesus Christ’s blood that was shed for us. Ultimately the greatest judgement that God, the just, Himself dispenses is contingent via the new covenant upon whether or not we, by faith and obedience, accept His Son as our propitiation and obey His Lordship. Eternal damnation by God awaits all those who don’t do what is required of them. Don’t make God out to be unjust or “insane” for saving or damning people based upon what they failed to do, rather let God be true and every man a liar.

        Also: Derek, you seem to be leaving out the possibility of Polygyny.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “If my husband decided today that he is simply tired of working 60 hours a week to keep me clothed and fed, that there is no Bible verse that commands him to be the bread winner, and he is done.”

        Your premise (in bold) is false.

        1 Timothy 5:8
        But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

        Exodus 21:10
        If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.

        Marriage is a covenant. Both sides are granted their respective rights and possessions in exchange for taking on and performing their respective duties as able. If either side is guaranteed nothing, then legally it becomes an “unconscionable contract”.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “… the use of State violence (i.e. civil government) to enforce religious law.”

        History Lesson: Kings and rulers of all sorts once considered it in the best interest of their kingdoms that families should stay together and be fruitful having lots of sex (kids) within the marriage and none without (bastards). The civil governments enforced morality for the benefit of the kingdom, not as some service to the church. Furthermore, most kings felt their divine right to rule came with a duty to rule well. Enforcing moral order just made good sense to rulers, regardless of their religious status. Even today our rulers try to force their religious beliefs (immorality) on us.

        Vlad the impaler used to impale adulterous couples together on the same pike so that folks could clearly see the new union and how it paid off. I bet that put a damper on adultery. I’m not saying Vlad is a role model, just that even tyrants enforced morality for their own reasons often citing the benefits of maintaining good morality to the state.

        The U.S. form of government isn’t suited to an immoral people. Tyranny suits the immoral. Tyranny is coming. The only decision is, do you want religious tyranny or hedonistic tyranny? They’re likely to be nearly the same in degree of evil at the leadership level. But a religious tyranny is probably better for the society. Hedonism doesn’t sustain itself. The coming tyrannical state will be using violence to enforce their moral beliefs, I’d rather they be good moral beliefs than bad. Currently we’re headed towards godless Marxist enslavement if folks don’t stand up and oppose it vehemently.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “Not having sex does not dissolve a marriage. It is not divorce, nor is it of the permitted type even if it were. No man (or woman) may separate what God has cleaved together.”

      I beg to differ. A spouse that willfully withholds sex is guilty of sexual immorality that permits divorce. Both withholding and adultery are specific forms of fornication that involve the property rights of a husband. Once it is understood that everything in a household belongs to the husband, just like everything in the church belongs to Christ (and we should all be on our knees in gratitude that it does), the the gravity of the sin of withholding really is readily seen.

      Because the wife belongs to the husband as part of his household, adultery is theft of that husband’s belonging. Withholding is the denial of use of his belonging which is another way of stealing his belonging from him. So withholding is just another means of ending the marriage, as sex is the one part of relationship reserved for married people that can not be acquired anywhere else without of sinning. It’s what makes marriage unique and it is what God uses to knit two people together.

      When sex is denied that knitting does not happen and the man never gets his “wife goggles”. The effects of withholding are what I am dealing with after nearly 2 decades of marriage. I don’t have wife goggles and so instead of seeing the evidence of my wife aging and having that reality being seen through the lens of good times and memories of the past I see a middle aged woman whose looks are deteriorating. This is the harsh reality of withholding sex in marriage. It’s not pretty.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “A spouse that willfully withholds sex is guilty of sexual immorality that permits divorce.”

        I’ve twice now linked to Deep Strength’s well-cited and well-argued treatise on divorce, which explains why this is not the case.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Marital abandonment, which withholding is, is porneia and constitutes a valid reason for divorce. I don’t need volumes of words to see this. Simply put, and to prevent people from spending hours time reading, withholding and adultery are reflections of each other in terms of commitment to a marriage. The promise to “forsake all others” and the promise “to have and to hold” are equal promises of sexual fidelity within marriage. The breaking of the marriage’s sexual fidelity is fornication/sexual immorality/porneia and as such is the one reason that we have to justify divorce.

        What is interesting is the absence of reasons Jesus says justifies divorce. There are no exceptions for illness, poverty, infertility or any other difficulty couples face. But screw around (pun intended) with sexual fidelity and God gives us an out. This exception indicates the deep importance of sex at the core of a marriage, such that breaking that bond is the ONLY reason divorce is permitted.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @jcepil

        “I choose NOT to feed my son. He has no lawful means to feed himself. He dies of starvation. I am guilty of murder.”

        Negligence is usually a lesser offense in modern law. Your example is not even necessarily murder, even if it was a choice. Critically, the death penalty is only justified if it is murder. The insanity is applying capital punishment to inaction that does not take a life, as I stated:

        “While the death penalty was a Mosaic civil penalty for a variety of infractions, before Mosaic law its primary purpose was to satisfy the blood debt for someone who had taken a life. It remains so today.”

        No blood debt, no death penalty, especially for sins of omission.

        “…The marriage dies..i.e. husband divorces his wife.”

        Equivocating on literal and figurative death is not a logically or legally valid justification for the death penalty for defrauding.

        Man cannot separate what God has put together. Christians are forbidden from remarriage. That is adultery.

        Like

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “Don’t bother claiming DeepStrength as some kind of authority….his own words.”

        Or, put another way, don’t bother to cite the Bible and scholars of the Bible to describe what the Bible actually says (as Deep Strength does time and again). Don’t bother to make an argument. Instead, treat this Sigma Frame essay by RPA—which contains no Bible references nor references to biblical scholarship—as authoritative. I did note that the very first reference in that essay cites Deep Strength.

        “Marital abandonment, which withholding is, is porneia and constitutes a valid reason for divorce.”

        Marital abandonment is when a spouse abandons another spouse. We call that separation, and Paul describes what a Christian is to do in that case. It isn’t the death penalty. Separation is at worse equivalent to, and at best worse than, defrauding.

        Sexual immorality (porneia) can include fornicating, whoring, adultery, incest, harlotry, and (male) homosexuality, all of which are explicit illicit sexual acts. One authority states:

        “prostitution, unchastity, fornication, of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse”

        Another states:

        “adultery, fornication, licentiousness, and homosexuality”

        Another adds bestiality.

        Interestingly, not all scholars can’t agree if female homosexual acts qualify, because it doesn’t involve penetrative intercourse. You’ll be hard pressed to find a single scholar that would include sexual inaction, especially in light of Paul’s instructions to Christians for what to do in the case of marital abandonment.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        The way I understand it, sexual congress is a sacrament of marriage that renews the marriage covenant. It is perhaps the most important sacrament, especially for younger couples. If covenant sacraments are neglected, then the covenant bond becomes weaker and falls into disrepair. Adultery is a gross transgression against the marriage covenant and it’s worse when women do it. Withholding sex is a lesser but still significant abuse / neglect of the marital covenant sacrament of sex, especially when women do it.

        I think the question that is being kicked around here is not so much about the biblical / legal justification for divorce (because the bible is clear on this), but rather, how badly can one abuse/ neglect the sacraments of the marriage covenant before sanctification becomes impossible?

        Deep Strength cites the bible to argue that adultery crosses this line. Some denominations have decided that abandonment and brutally tortuous physical abuse will do it. RPA is testifying from his own experience that continually withholding the sacrament of sex for many years is enough to cross this line. Many other men have reported similar confessions, including deti, whiteguy, et al. Constant nagging was enough to close Leo Tolstoy’s heart to his wife. Most of these men stick it out (as long as she sticks around), but the marriage is essentially dead. This is not God’s will for marriage any more than divorce.

        I was hoping that RPA’s post would bring a little more clarity to this phenomenon, but it hasn’t (in my opinion). Law seems to trump faith in this area.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        @ RPA: I agree with you 100% about the importance of bonding that occurs between husband and wife via the sexual union (the closeness, the wife goggles, the more pleasant interactions in every other area, all of it). However, let me ask you this:

        If my husband decided today that he is simply tired of working 60 hours a week to keep me clothed and fed, that there is no Bible verse that commands him to be the bread winner, and he is done. If he declared that from here on out, I need to figure out a way for us to keep a roof over our heads, the lights on, and food in our family’s stomachs and he meant it. Suppose this went on for one year, two years, three years, etc.

        Has he defacto abandoned me in such a way that is effectively a breach of covenant?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Elspeth,

        “Has he defacto abandoned me in such a way that is effectively a breach of covenant?”

        I would say, yes.

        Exodus 21:10 implies that a husband must provide food and clothing for his wife. Some translations go into more detail to say shelter and sex. Also see 1 Timothy 5:8.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @Jack

        “Withholding sex is a lesser but still significant abuse / neglect of the marital covenant sacrament of sex.”

        Yes, this is the point I have been trying to make. Just because it is lesser does not mean it is insignificant. In case it was lost in the fray, I was responding to the claim that defrauding is worthy of death penalty. I described that as an atrocity. My criticisms are reserved almost entirely to repudiating that position.

        “Most of these men stick it out (as long as she sticks around), but the marriage is essentially dead. This is not God’s will for marriage any more than divorce.”

        I agree that it is not God’s will. The marriage is figuratively dead or dying, but separating is not theologically equivalent to divorce. That’s one area where I differ from some here. A marriage can’t truly be killed in the fullest sense. The physical, emotional, and spiritual bonds can be corrupted, but can’t ever completely be severed until death (and perhaps not even after, if kids are involved). That said, I’m fine with the simplicity of calling it ‘dead’, so long as it is clear what that means.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Derek,

        “I was responding to the claim that defrauding is worthy of death penalty.”

        Yes, I know you got distracted by Sharkly hijacking the thread with his shtick about the death penalty. This post is about sexual authority and sanctification, not about the death penalty. Sharkly could at least segue into his shtick by first discussing how it relates to sexual authority and sanctification. Better yet, he could address that issue on his own blog.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        @elspeth

        “Has he defacto abandoned me in such a way that is effectively a breach of covenant?”

        As did King David and Michal. Michal spoke out against her husband, publicly demeaning him, and as a result was childless the rest of her life. The implication was that he never had sex with her again. Was he wrong to do so? Were they still married?

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Has he defacto abandoned me in such a way that is effectively a breach of covenant?”

        Yes.

        Not only that, all of society will step in to force him, on pain of civil liability and impoverishment and imprisonment, to support you financially. All of society will bring to bear on him extreme, extreme pressure to make sure he supports you financially.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        @ Derek:

        That’s an interesting take. I never assumed that David never slept with Michal, only that God closed her womb, much the way Rachel’s womb was closed until God mercifully opened it. This is the first I’ve ever heard of that story being interpreted as a sexless marriage.

        But yes, they were still married. She wasn’t free to marry anyone else. Although, there is an argument to be had that under the law, David was not supposed to be joined to her anymore once her father had taken her from David — during his exile — and gave her to Paltiel.

        Of course, I like Jack’s comment about not clinging to the letter of the law rather than grace and faith. I also don’t really like assuming things that Scripture doesn’t assert (such as David and Michal never came together again).

        Like a good Reformed Christian, I also have to ask the question, “What if it is a particular man’s cross to bear that he must suffer long with his wife through such a trial?” That is not to normalize withholding in any way licit.

        I try to help other women though and I do point out that every other thing they do with and for their husbands can be outsourced except this. So I get the significance, but I think when you escalate to “divorce worthy offense”, I wonder if we’re not looking at all the angles. For example, 1 Cor. mentions staying married so that your children are sanctified, etc.

        I enjoy being with my husband, the feeling is mutual, and it always has been so this is all academic to me personally, but I am concerned that there are other variables to be considered which are not.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “David was not supposed to be joined to her anymore once her father had taken her from David — during his exile — and gave her to Paltiel.”

        It was a sin for Saul to break up their marriage by “giving” Michal to Paltiel, most likely to establish an economic-political alliance and to shame David in the process. The bible doesn’t say this explicitly, but when Michal got banged up by another man while David was still living, she became an adulteress (by definition) and her marriage to David was dead from then on. David wasn’t really obligated to take her back, and probably shouldn’t have, but he did so anyway (but never had sex with her again), probably to reestablish his domain. This is a great example of a generational curse passing from father to daughter.

        One interesting thing about this story is that Michal was really nutz about David when they first married, but the Tingles died out somewhere along the way.

        Another interesting thing about this story is that it is a historical example of how adulteresses come to disrespect and shame their husbands.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        A woman’s willful refusal to have sex with her husband when she is bodily and mentally and emotionally able to do so, but simply refuses because she does not want to or does not “feel like it”, is marital abandonment and grounds for divorce. Period. End of discussion.

        By refusing to have sex with her husband she is essentially declaring she does not consider herself married. She is separating herself from her husband and refusing to give him the one thing he cannot get anywhere else. It’s an open declaration of war.

        By the same token: A man’s willful refusal to support his wife financially when he is bodily and mentally and emotionally able to do so, but simply refuses because he does not want to or does not “feel like it”… well, no one knows what that looks like. Courts and government step in to make him do it. E, if SAM refused to work to support you, government would enslave him and make him do it. Government would issue orders garnishing everything he has and giving it to you. You would divorce him and the court would issue orders taking at least half of everything he has and giving it to you and your children. Government would take half of any welfare or SSI payments he receives. Seized and taken as child support and alimony. Anything he owned, any money he made, would be simply taken and turned over to you.

        A situation in which an able bodied married man can simply… not work even when his wife wants and demands and needs him to, and government will do nothing about this? Simply does not happen. All of government’s machinery would be deployed against him and would simply seize and take anything he owned, any money he made, and turn it over to you.

        And, yes, that would be considered marital abandonment.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        deti,

        “And, yes, that would be considered marital abandonment.”

        Are you saying this from an established legal precedent or as a philosophical perspective?

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        E –

        “Has he defacto abandoned me in such a way that is effectively a breach of covenant?”

        For whatever reason, God has deemed the sexual congress between a husband and a wife so important that breaking that aspect of the covenant relationship is enough to justify ending it. Nothing else justifies dissolving the union, not a husband’s lack of provision nor a wife’s disobedience.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Ramsey says:

        “I know you got distracted…”

        True. I am chastised.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “For whatever reason, God has deemed the sexual congress between a husband and a wife so important that breaking that aspect of the covenant relationship is enough to justify ending it.”

        Because sexual congress is what makes the husband and wife one flesh.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “Are you saying this from an established legal precedent or as a philosophical perspective?”

        Both. It could be biblical, based on the “he who will not work or support his family is worse than an unbeliever” scripture.

        Like

    • Jcepi1 says:

      @Derek Ramsey said:

      “We don’t kill somebody for not doing something. That’s insane.”

      I choose NOT to feed my son.
      He has no lawful means to feed himself.
      He dies of starvation.
      I am guilty of murder.

      C’mon man, sins of ommission/comission…basic 5th grade logic

      A wife refuses sex with her husband
      He has no lawful means to satiate his sexual hunger
      The marriage dies..i.e. husband divorces his wife.
      Wife has broken marriage covenant via “omission”…NOT doing something.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Pingback: It’s too easy to blame everything on Feminism | Σ Frame

  8. “Deep Strength cites the bible to argue that adultery crosses this line. Some denominations have decided that abandonment and brutally tortuous physical abuse will do it. RPA is testifying from his own experience that continually withholding the sacrament of sex for many years is enough to cross this line. Many other men have reported similar confessions, including deti, whiteguy, et al. Constant nagging was enough to close Leo Tolstoy’s heart to his wife. Most of these men stick it out (as long as she sticks around), but the marriage is essentially dead. This is not God’s will for marriage any more than divorce.”

    A bit off topic, but adultery is not a valid reason for divorce in the long post.

    Christianity and Masculinity: Divorce Part 8 (Actual Final) (2022-6-17)

    I’m in the marriage permanence camp. But I do think if a proper covenant was not established there is possibility for annulment. Proper covenant being that both spouses are aware of the permanence of marriage under God and they know and agree to all of the roles and responsibilities of marriage. No one is surprised. They take vows before God to uphold them. Such a marriage is permanent. No divorce.

    The Catholic system, with all its flaws, probably sticks to what God intended the best.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “Proper covenant being that both spouses are aware of the permanence of marriage under God and they know and agree to all of the roles and responsibilities of marriage. No one is surprised. They take vows before God to uphold them. Such a marriage is permanent. No divorce.”

      I used to be in the marriage is permanent camp. Then I had a wife that knew her roles and responsibilities and outright refused to abide by her covenantal vows. In God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15, the split animal is a symbolic gesture of what should happen if the roles and responsibilities of the covenant are not upheld. Basically, the lesser party in the covenant is saying, “Let me be like this animal rendered apart if I do not uphold the covenant”, as that party walks between the bloody halves of the animal.

      What is important here is that there is that the covenant has a remedy if one party breaks the covenant. In Abraham’s case, God performed both parts of the covenant assuring the covenant would not be broken and that salvation would be for all those He calls to Himself. But in our broken world sin means that the ideal of the marital covenant being permanent is not always the case. Both sexual withholding and adultery effectively render the covenant relationship in two because of integral part sex plays in creating the one flesh bond between husband and wife. While the ideal scenario after forgiveness is the restoration of the one flesh union, because we are in a fallen world that does not always happen. In those situations, divorce is the remedy for the sexually injured party in the covenant. It’s not the ideal that existed from the beginning, but it is biblically permissible given the reality of the world we live in.

      Like

      • @ RPA

        “What is important here is that there is that the covenant has a remedy if one party breaks the covenant. In Abraham’s case, God performed both parts of the covenant assuring the covenant would not be broken and that salvation would be for all those He calls to Himself. But in our broken world sin means that the ideal of the marital covenant being permanent is not always the case. Both sexual withholding and adultery effectively render the covenant relationship in two because of integral part sex plays in creating the one flesh bond between husband and wife. While the ideal scenario after forgiveness is the restoration of the one flesh union, because we are in a fallen world that does not always happen. In those situations, divorce is the remedy for the sexually injured party in the covenant. It’s not the ideal that existed from the beginning, but it is biblically permissible given the reality of the world we live in.”

        I already covered why I don’t think this is the case Biblically in my post. Under OT law there were exceptions (for hardness of heart) but not under Jesus.

        Like

    • Jcepi1 says:

      @ DeepStrength,

      I have your book, Deep Strength, and have read it… I appreciated it. I also read your verbose, confusing post on divorce. I admire your dedication to fleshing out what justifies divorce… but for the common man out here… your post on divorce and your book read like a vomiting of every thought and fact relevant to your chosen topic, leaving the reader confused. In case you believe I judge too harshly… I also process my thoughts in a similar manner.

      @DerekRamsey,

      Capital punishment for sexual withholding was not on my mind…. justification for divorce was.

      Also, to dodge the murder charges in the future, I’d rather be like Stalin and starve my people to death (instead of having each one shot in the head). The worst I’ll get is life in prison… a luxury my victims do not have.

      Also, why are you and Deep Strength so reverent of “Biblical Scholars”? Isn’t that part of what got us into our current feminist tyranny?

      Biblical Gender Roles and Sharkly are more direct and clear in my opinion… albeit less intellectually sophisticated.

      Like

  9. Pingback: Headship is an extension of the life you built when single | Christianity and masculinity

  10. Pingback: Shaking the dust off your shoes | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: Only Hunky Monks can find a Sanctified Marriage | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: 5 Years with Σ Frame | Σ Frame

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 )

Connecting to %s