This inherent trait in Men is their Achilles Heel.
Readership: All
Theme: Cultural Demise
Length: 1,300 words
Reading Time: 7 minutes
Hard Times and Weak Men
As Thedeti and I described in the Zeitgeist Reports — Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, The Beta Factory (2023/7/24), Tweaking Complementarianism for Mass Consumption (2023/7/26), and other posts this month, we are living in a time of great social and spiritual upheaval.
We are experiencing the same spiritual conditions now that the prophet Micah did in the 8th century B.C.*
8 Recently My people have arisen as an enemy —
Micah 2:8-9 (NASB)
You strip the robe off the garment
From unsuspecting passers-by,
From those returned from war.
9 You evict the women of My people,
Each one from her pleasant house.
From her children you take My splendor forever.
* Micah (ca. 740-670 B.C.) prophesied from approximately 737 to 696 BC. He was the first prophet to predict the downfall of Jerusalem in 722 B.C.
It is said that history never repeats itself, but it often rhymes. In contrast with Micah’s description, today’s rich are fleecing the middle-class. Women are disrobing themselves for every man who passes for a Ch@d / HVM. Men are returning from war to find themselves cucked, used, and discarded. Women are advised to evict themselves by choice from their father’s home to pursue various worldly life scripts. And there is little difference between the World and those who call themselves Christians.
The end result is the same. Women are exposed and disgraced and the children are cut off from the heartfelt knowledge of the Lord’s splendor.
Eventually, the women pass into self-absorbed ignominy (many of the wine and cats variety) and those children grow into “men” (lower case m).
Men are Spiritually Broken
We are now looking at a generation of men who have been treated like defective women and who have been systematically beat out of competition by morally deficient men.
We are dealing with a generation of men who did NOT have the privilege of seeing their fathers as masculine men who were honored and respected by their mothers when they were children. Consequently, they never knew the authentic love of the Lord through their parents’ sacrificial love for each other.
We are suffering with a generation of men who never experienced a father’s loving Headship authority during their upbringing, and thus have never experienced the presence of the Lord.
We have an epidemic of men who had feminist mothers who cucked their fathers before they even married, and later frivorced their fathers leaving them high and dry with a cynical and hopeless attitude towards marriage and family.
Furthermore, these men didn’t get enough unconditional love from their gynocentric solipsistic feminist mothers, so now they’re desperately and hopelessly looking for women among their own generation — women who are even more defiant and morally deficient than their mothers — to match this need and fill up the emptiness in their hearts.
In a sense, Feminist mouthpieces are correct in calling men immature boys / man children. But it’s not because men aren’t giving women what they want (as they say). It’s because Men’s masculine development has been emasculated / retarded / suppressed by feminist mothers, by decades of progressive values / norms / ideologies, by churchian beta factories, by gynocentric laws, by parental divorce, and by having no masculine role models.
This is where we as a society are right now.
Men Expect Women to be Ideal
As a result of (or in spite of) these enervating and punishing conditions, Men continue to hold themselves to the old standards of Chivalry in their regard for women. In fact, it is in Men’s nature to do so on account of one strength / weakness in particular — Men’s undying romantic / idealistic love, and how this shapes Men’s view of women as being the primary recipients of that love.
On this, The Eye of Sauron wrote,
“The ubiquitous Blue Pill conditioning plays upon and exploits Men’s biggest weaknesses. Our undying romantic / idealistic love. Our innate sense of responsibility and accountability. Our propensity to simply work harder in the face of adversity. Our tendency toward introspection, self-reflection / improvement and raising the standards — striving for excellence. Our faith that logic and reason can be imparted to all and they will simply comply.”
All of these traits and more are coopted by the Feminine Imperative for the benefit of women, as has been discussed at length here and elsewhere.
In this, there is some degree of projection on the part of Men. Men imagine women to be Moral Agents who are Strong and Independent enough to be lovingly empathetic to Men. Therefore, Men, especially Blue Pilled men who remain ignorant of reality, expect women to be actively affectionate, kindhearted, and considerate of their wants and needs.
Then… Men become deeply angry, bitter, and/or disappointed when it is discovered that women are not actually like this, contrary to what they have been taught, told, and led to believe.
We call this experience “Taking the Red Pill” and the resulting angst, “Red Pill Rage”.
Ultimately, this disappointment arises from having their Blue Pilled perceptions of reality destroyed, especially the liberal notion of women being “equals” which infers that women have all the uniquely masculine traits EoS described above.
When Men discover that their projected idealizations of women are false, injury is then added to insult when they learn that Men are literally on their own, and that all these defiled solipsistic women, helpless children, and all of society are riding on their backs.
We call this experience “Taking the Black Pill”.
Men Expect Themselves to be Ideal
When reality is so bitter, it is tempting to escape into fantasy if only to retain one’s sanity and keep one’s hopes alive. Not only do Men like to entertain the notion that the women in their lives are perfect princesses with a pink P pocket, Men also like to think this about themselves too.
For example, one commenter wrote in regarding the sh!tlord deti approach,
“Where does the patience, bearing, believing, hoping, and enduring come into your method of doing things?”
“It’s just that your way (at least seems) to lack the grace and mercy that I know Christ has surely shown to me in my life. It also seems to lack many of the other attributes of what the Bible tells us that love is. I am not going so far as to say that it’s not right, it’s just that I have a hard time reconciling it with the standard we husbands have been given… to “love your wives as Christ loves the church”.
Here, the commenter is holding himself to love his wife altruistically, in spite of her displaying the worst sorts of defiant behavior (which is a necessary condition for taking The deti Route). In this context, whether the husband is being sufficiently merciful and forbearing is not the question. The true question is one of appropriateness and effectiveness. Men should not close their eyes or look the other way when the Curse of Eve overcomes their wives, and thereby allow sin to proliferate, nor should they love their wives more than Christ Himself. And we should not forget how Christ loved the 7 churches in Revelation 2 and 3. The problem with each church was different, but the message for all was essentially, “Get your act together before the Almighty’s wrath descends upon you!”
How difficult will it be for men to forsake the quiet desperation of the autopilot, wake up from their idealistic daydreaming, reassess the efficaciousness of their altruistic habits, and engage life with the force of reckoning with reality?
Related
- Σ Frame: Wallowing in the Red Pill (2020/1/29)
- Σ Frame: Men’s Role in the Mess (2022/12/21)
- Σ Frame: The Glorious Warlord (2023/3/20)
- Σ Frame: Red Pill Authenticity: The Spirit of Headship (2023/4/28)
- Σ Frame: The Battle for Headship begins on the Home Turf (2023/4/7)
- Σ Frame: Wayne Grudem’s Study of the Greek Word kephalē, “Head” (2023/4/19)
- Σ Frame: On Choosing a Wife Wisely (2023/5/1)
- Σ Frame: Women were Created to Conform (2023/5/8)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
Attachment specialist Adam Lane Smith has talked about why therapy doesn’t work for men: it gets them to talk about their feelings, which isn’t useless, but that’s not why a man is there. A man goes to therapy because he feels powerless to change his situation. Lane’s solution is to give men the tools to feel like they’re capable enough to handle their problems, and instantly the depression goes away.
I’ve been critical of people like Oscar and their “Just find a good church, bro” approach, not because it’s wrong, but because most of the men receiving this advice cannot even imagine that working out. And it’s not because they’re losers, they’ve had it beaten out of them:
Read the comments: Guy after guy saying, “I thought I was the problem. I thought I was the broken one.” Men are broken, demoralized, isolated, and alone. Or at least they think they are. The first step is helping them on their feet and genuinely having their backs when they fail. Once they believe they can stand on their own two feet, then you can tell them, “Go build communities”, or “Go to that church over there and find yourself a wife”, and they will do it. But not a minute before. Hack at the root and not the leaves.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I never said, “Just find a good church, bro”. I never said “just” do anything.
If you’re going to criticize me, at least criticize me for something I actually said or did.
Of course, that would require you to stop trying to read my mind and instead actually try to understand what I actually wrote, and you’re not going to do that, are you?
LikeLike
I have no desire to start beef with you, but you have been criticized for giving that type of advice before and your response has always been that people are tying to “read your mind” and getting it wrong. If you think people are getting you wrong, then either be more clear or live with being misunderstood.
My whole point is that the bootstraps speech, no matter who is giving it, is not a one-size-fits-all. Most modern men are not a pep talk away from making it. Sad, but true. I have sympathy for these men, and try to help them, even if it’s just an internet “I got you, fam”. The fact is you always push back on that. Why? It pisses you off, I guess, so I won’t.
Notice also how I said that what you say isn’t even wrong, just that not all men are in a place to receive it. That appears to be controversial only to you. Why, I don’t know. There’s room here for both of us, I think, and nobody wins an internet fight so this the last I’m going to say about it. Do with it what you will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Which is of course why you falsely accused me of saying things I never said.
No dude. I said you are trying to read my mind. You’re being vague and passive, as usual.
I have been clear, but you insist on reading my mind, which you can’t do, so you keep getting it wrong. Have you considered asking what I think, instead of trying and failing to read my mind?
I never gave a “bootstraps speech”. You’re still failing at reading minds.
I never gave a “pep talk”. You’re still failing at reading minds.
That’s not a fact. That’s your inaccurate perception caused by your trying and failing at reading minds.
Who says I’m “pissed off”? You’re failing at reading minds again.
You don’t even know what I said. I never said, “Just find a good church, bro.” You’re still failing at reading minds.
I never said it was “controversial”. You’re failing at reading minds again.
Then why’d you start one?
Has your mind reading ever worked? Has it ever helped you understand what another person thinks? Has it ever helped you communicate with anyone?
What’s so difficult about asking what another person thinks, instead of trying to read their mind?
LikeLike
Exhibit A:
LikeLike
I have a slightly different perspective than those good traits in men being coopted by women for their benefit. We can discuss the reasons why, but women’s actions show that they assume those good traits in men are baked into the cake so to speak. As such, they don’t have appreciation for them until they experience a man lacking them, at which point they may recognize these traits are not a given and value them more (often the epiphany is too late for them to avoid serious life consequences). In short, it is as if women in the west start out assuming the traits to be true and even when they are not found in a man, shaming commences from numerous sources, reinforcing the notion that women are owed them for merely being women. Because women assume men’s good qualities will always be there, very few of them realize that they have the responsibility to exhibit the feminine version of these traits in reciprocity.
With Mrs. RPA I have often thought how she had no fear (the healthy kind) in displaying the worst types of behavior against me. She acted as if she believed my goodness and restraint could be trod upon indefinitely without consequence. I don’t believe she was consciously using them against me. I think the more accurate view is that she saw her father display these qualities with her mother and it never crossed her mind that those qualities in a husband are not a given and that she should cherish them or at a minimum not abuse them. The interesting aspect of my marriage now is that these qualities are no longer a given for her, as she has to earn them through displaying her own good qualities, and the result is that her behavior is the polar opposite of what it was.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Those traits are not innate. Plenty of men in the West lack them, and outside the West they’re exceedingly rare.
I agree with you. Women take those traits for granted because they think they’re innate, but they’re not. Any man can reach burnout given enough contentiousness, and when he does those traits will disappear if he ever had them to begin with.
LikeLiked by 3 people
After a bit of research and study for some upcoming topics, I’m coming to believe that altruism is a symptom of The Enlightenment, Individualism, and maybe some other stuff too. Men growing up in Western cultures have had this imbued in them from their youth, especially church-going men, so it becomes innate. I also believe European genetics (especially Northern European) are more altruistic than other genome pools. That would include most Wh!tes in North America.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, If those traits were innate, men couldn’t lose them. Obviously, they do. We’ve all seen it, or even experienced it.
Second, those traits are a misapplication of the commandments to honor wives as the weaker vessel and love them as Christ loves the Church. A lot of people think that means never holding women to any standard and giving them everything they want, and never ask themselves if Christ holds the Church to any standard or gives the Church everything she wants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar,
The premise that innate traits can’t be lost is not true. Because a trait is innate does not mean that it is immutable.
Think of all the natural characteristics a person might have that can be changed by outside influence. Abuse wreaks havoc on children (and adults as well), as does divorce and traits we’d consider innate to them are lost. These are just a couple examples where people who are naturally kind, trusting, and joyous can change.
Neuroplasticity is a real observable biological reality, which means our brains do rewire. Rewiring a brain means that innate characteristics can and do change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RPA,
That’s a good point. I hadn’t thought of that. Still, I doubt the traits Jack said are innate to men actually are innate to men because so many men don’t have them, especially outside the West.
LikeLike
Oscar,
It is likely I suffer from chivalrous, western, boomer, blue-pilled father bias. I remember him teaching to always look out for the other guy first and to treat women well. The issue was that he did not adequately teach what to do if the other guy saw you as someone to use or what to do if women behaved badly. It was textbook training for how to be a nice guy that lacked the skills to deal with a contentious wife. This upbringing also creates some of my bias of what I see as characteristics of men in the west. I grew up in a whole family of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed, but that supports my point. You said that you were taught and not taught. That which is taught is not innate.
Innate literally means “inborn”, or “born with”. Its root word is “natale”, which in Latin means “birth”.
I too was poorly trained. We all were. That’s why we’re here. Jesus said, “Be shrewd as serpents and gentle as doves” (Matthew 10:16). Those of us who grew up in feminized Western churches were taught how to be gentle as doves, but our teachers completely neglected to teach us how to be shrewd as serpents. They probably didn’t even know how.
The good news is that, because these traits are not innate, we can train our sons better.
LikeLike
Re: The definition of “innate”
The original quote from EoS was,
Somehow, altruism got read into that.
The way I used “innate” (and I think RPA too) was to describe traits that are an intrinsic part of one’s constitution and social identity, and are thus naturally expressed.
Oscar offered a dictionary definition of “innate” to mean traits that one is born with, i.e. genetically determined.
In a previous comment, I mentioned that Wh!tes are more altruistic than other races. Here’s some evidence for that claim.
American Renaissance: Researchers Find Whites More Altruistic Than Other Races (2013/10/18)
Mix up a witches brew of Chivalry, some Kantian Post-Enlightenment ethics, blend it up with a couple centuries of churchian teachings that misapply “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” to the whole world, and gnostic heretical mantras like, “God wants us to make the world a better place”, and presto! Altruism is now “innate” (by either definition). 🙂
I suspect that Wh!tes have a genetic propensity towards altruism, and this inclination for them to be altruistic has been embellished and magnified by culture, education, philosophy, and religion.
I agree. But we’re working against culture, education, philosophy, and churchianity (viz. “The World”), as well as our own human nature (for Wh!tes especially). Being aware of this is an important first step in the right direction. That’s why I’m focusing on this topic.
LikeLike
As the “commenter” you quote above, not sure why you just don’t just use my name as you do with other commenters, but let me expound on the problem I have with Deti’s approach.
First of all, you only quoted a small part of what I wrote. I urge readers to go back and read the whole thing for the proper context.
To summarize:
— God instructs husbands to “love their wives as Christ loves the church”.
— That love is to be a sanctifying love that washes the wife in the word to remove her spots and blemishes.
— I have no problem with a husband laying down rules. Christ does this with us.
— I have no problem with a husband disciplining his wife. Christ does this with us.
— But the love we show our wives also has to include the 1 Corinthians 13 love and that love, among other things, “bears all things, ….. endures all things, and never fails”.
The problem that I have with Deti’s approach, is when he gives his wife the ultimatum that she will comply with his “new set of rules and standards, ….. or the marriage would end”.
That is where he loses me. You see, Christ does not threaten, nor will He ever divorce his bride the church. It is true, that the Bible tells us that (because of the hardness of our hearts) we are ALLOWED to divorce in certain circumstances, but there are only two such circumstances. Sexual immorality and abandonment by an unbeliever. Even then, divorce is not commanded, it is only allowed, if we are too weak to stick it out as Christ does with us (no matter what we do).
I repeat, Christ will NEVER divorce his bride the church. The last part of Romans 8 makes is crystal clear that there is nothing that can happen that will cause us to lose our salvation. Christ promises that He will never leave us or forsake us.
Even if a wife commits “sexual immorality”, the higher calling of a husband, if he is to “love his wife as Christ loves the church”, is to stick it out and not divorce her. Certainly threatening to divorce her for less than that is not consistent with the commands we are given as husbands on how we are to love our wives.
You see, it is possible to be in a horrible marriage where the wife is not committing “sexual immorality” and still being a horrible, contentious, disrespectful, disobedient, dishonoring, shameful wife, but that is not justification for divorce. In this case, we are called, among other things… to suffer.
You see, those verses are right before Peter tells wives that no matter what kind of man they married, (lost, saved, harsh, cruel, unjust, unreasonable, forward, cooked, perverse, unfair, wicked, etc.) they are to submit to that man, even if they have to endure suffering in the process.
If wives are commanded to suffer in their marriages (for doing what God commands them to do) then certainly that applies to husbands also. The key, is to make sure we are suffering for doing what is right, and what is right is obeying all that God commands us to do as husbands.
That is what I am still trying to work out in my marriage. Exactly what does that look like? I will admit that I do not have the total answer but I can tell you one thing that it doesn’t look like, it does not include me threating my wife with divorce for anything less that what the Bible allows for.
Responding to your comment to (the part of what I wrote):
If your definition of altruism is “in an unselfish way, despite not gaining anything for myself, even at risk or cost to myself”, then yes I am doing my best to love her that way as that is EXACTLY how Christ loves me.
Since Christ is our example, it’s hard to know.
I agree with this 100%.
I don’t think ANYTHING we do could possibly achieve this.
LikeLike
Not a chance.
LikeLike
I hit like on this accidentally. Regarding your willingness to openly espouse being a cuckold, have you ever read the letters to the 7 churches in Asia? If you think you are showing Christian love by staying with a “wife” who has sex with other men, what you really need is to quit watching cuckold porn and actually read your Bible while praying for wisdom. Boasting about how Christ-like you are by being a cuckold is nauseating to read, not to mention blasphemous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pretty sure you can un-like it by hitting it again.
First of all I said “sexual immorality”, I did not say adultery. The word in the Greek is “porneia” and it can mean many things including adultery, but my understanding is that it’s not limited to that but includes any kind of sexual sin, like a wife refusing to have sex with her husband.
Sexual refusal is what I had in mind since that was the first of Deti’s new expectations that he listed for his wife.
That said, where I am currently in my walk with the Lord, would not be strong enough to handle my wife committing adultery and I would exercise that allowance and divorce her should she cross that line.
But a stronger man in the Lord would not.
LikeLike
BTW Trey, you do understand that a willing acceptance of cuckoldry is homosexuality by proxy, don’t you?
LikeLike
Trey,
This reads like a theoretical thought experiment. Can a woman exhibit these traits and not commit sexual immorality that would justify divorce? It’s possible. It’s also going to be more rare than a genuine Proverbs 31 wife. The way women are built, if she respects him so little as to treat her husband the way you describe, the chances of her being obedient to the command to not defraud is next to nothing. Because the curse in Genesis 3:16 is true and sex is the easiest lever to pull, defrauding is, more often than not, the opening salvo in the battle for control from the wife you describe.
I think the issue we have is looking around at women, even professing Christian women, and seeing that the norm is a woman who commits sexual sin that would justify divorce. This is the reality that we live in along with the societal bias against male headship in the West that means that husbands have very limited tools at their disposal.
In thedeti’s approach and in mine as it closely mirrored his, the threat of divorce was used to save a marriage by directly causing our wives to mature. As odd as this sounds, the very sincere threat of divorce actually protects the marriages. It does so by forcing our wives to self regulate their behavior. Would it have been better for them to learn to regulate their behavior voluntarily? It certainly would have.
But self-regulation was not reality. Repentance was not reality. Like God putting Israel away in the OT, divorce became the last resort of husbands that would not suffer being cheated anymore.
I could have written what you did about Christ loving the church and husbands loving their wives. I held fast to that through all sorts of horrendous behavior from Mrs. RPA. My suffering was quiet and inward, and I took the pain which eventually manifested itself in my body breaking down, until I didn’t. It is amazing what happens when a woman gets held to standards and knows the consequences of those standards.
Here is how a Christian husband who is being sinned against sexually by his wife can biblically use divorce to bring his wife to repentance. It is not a ranting or raving ultimatum. It is a calm statement of fact about sin, a call to repent of that sin and to cease committing it or there will be a different course of action. Something very simple, such as, “Marriage is for sex and sex is for marriage. Withholding is sexual immorality per 1 Cor 7 and if you keep using sex as a means of control in our marriage or refuse to have sex with me then I’ll take that as meaning you don’t want to be married to me and we’ll go our separate ways. The biblical standard for married couples is any time either of them wants to, and we can be reasonable and understanding towards one another if sickness or injury prevents us from having sex. If that is not what you want or are willing to do, then we need to go our separate ways.”
There is something about sexual sin that destroys people from the inside out. I believe this is why adultery was a capital offence in the OT. If we think about it, even though Christ will love all those the Father brings to Him and marriage is the earthly representation of the Savior and church relationship, sexual sin is such that it severs the covenant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, I have no problem with a husband informing his wife that a divorce will be the result if she commits “porneia” as that is clearly “allowed”. It is the threat of divorce for things other than this that I have a problem with.
And as much as the scenario I presented might be a “thought experiment” to some, I can assure you it can be a reality.
LikeLike
God hates divorce as much as he hates murder. A man can no more threaten to kill his wife than he can threaten to divorce her — whom God has brought together and no man can separate. Both are sins.
LikeLike
There are two things that need to be brought out of this conversation.
One, the threat of divorce being discussed here is basically married dread game. It’s not like the husband just ups and files out of the blue. But the stickler is that the husband has to be willing to make good on it, if that’s what she chooses.
Second, the wife’s behavior is a slippery slope. Bad behaviors get worse over time if not corrected. The open cuckoldry mentioned here is one of the worst possible behaviors. But it simply isn’t wise to let things progress that far before some action is taken. So where does a man draw the line?
— Secret affairs?
— Withholding sex?
— Flirting with other men?
— Posting scanty pics online?
— Public disrespect?
— Private disrespect?
— Talking sh!t about men?
— Talking sh!t about her husband?
— Being argumentative / contentious?
— Being unsubmissive?
— Being unkind / unloving?
Well, the buck has to stop somewhere, and needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets worse. So where do you draw the line?
I think a man should start with wherever his wife is on the list above, and try to move her down the list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re. divorce for anything short of PIV adultery with another man
Malachi states that God hates divorce, even though it was allowed due to hardness of heart. Truth!
Jesus said that anyone who divorces his wife for anything short of porneia commits and causes adultery. Truth!
Early in the 20’th century G. K. Chesterton wrote an essay he entitled “The Superstition of Divorce”. In this essay he posited that what the divorce agitators were asking was not the legalization of divorce, but the legalization of remarriage afterwards. So, is divorce and subsequent celibacy hated by God? Depends on the reason for the divorce I guess. My previous confessor did recommend that I divorce my wife, but with the warning that if I did so, I embrace celibacy afterwards.
God, through St. Paul commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Also in the first chapter of Romans, St. Paul warns Christians, that those who are obstinate in their lusts will be abandoned by Christ to their lusts.
May a husband divorce his wife if she lusts for her own desires and ignore his? If she exploits her husband without any consideration for the pain she has caused? I think so, but to remarry afterwards will requires an examination of conscience and introspection.
For a Catholic it would require an annulment, with the caution that the Church is corrupt and the annulment process can be and is misused.
LikeLike
IOW, they were pressing for serial monogamy, which is women’s preferred mating strategy. The next step was Marriage 2.0. 100 years later we see serial monogamy has become the norm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Correct. The absurd conclusion suggests an error with the logic:
In Ephesians 5:26, the verb “make holy” (sanctify) and the participle “having cleansed” are in the Aorist tense, indicating Christ’s one time action.
Marriage is not a sacrament, that is, it is not regenerative or sanctifying. Ephesians 5:26 refers to the death and resurrection of Christ. It is an example of total sacrifice for the sake of love. The love we show our wives is to have the same quality: total sacrifice. It is not our death and resurrection, nor can we remove sin and guilt, something reserved to God himself.
We cannot wash our wives in the word of God, only God can do this. Sanctification comes from the word of God (John 17:17) by God himself completely (1 Thessalonians 5:23) upon our conversion (Ephesians 1:13). All that remains is to offer ourself as a holy sacrifice (Romans 12:1), as in Ephesians 5.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To consider the entire instruction that Paul gives:
I certainly understand that “It is not our death and resurrection, nor can we remove sin and guilt, something reserved to God himself.”, but it appears to me that you are only focusing on one aspect of sanctification, Positional.
Do you not believe there are 3 types of sanctification, Positional, Progressive, and Ultimate? Your statement is limiting ALL of what Paul is saying here to just the first type, Positional.
I believe that Paul (in those verses) touch’s on all three aspects of it and verse 27 is certainly not already accomplished. We are not yet “without spot or wrinkle…” That refers to the third aspect of sanctification which is Ultimate sanctification. What happens in-between is… Progressive.
Positional sanctification – justification. At salvation, believers are justified, declared righteous in conformity to the image of Jesus Christ. This is certainly a one time action completed by God as you have stated above but what about Progressive sanctification?
Progressive sanctification – spiritual maturity. Progressive sanctification is the ongoing process of becoming (in experience) what we already are (positionally) in Christ. This is (at least in part) accomplished by the help of other Christians in our lives. The New Testament offers several passages on how believers are called to help one another grow in sanctification.
Believers are instructed to confront other believers who are living in sin.
Believers are tasked with the responsibility of gently correcting those who fall into sin and helping bear each other’s burdens.
By speaking truth to each other in love, Christians contribute to the growth and maturation (sanctification) of the whole body of Christ.
This verse encourages mutual teaching and admonition within the body of Christ.
Christians are urged to encourage each other regularly to prevent falling into sin.
All of these verses describe the process of how believers are to interact in the lives of other believers in an ongoing basis. And just to wrap up the topic, there is…
Ultimate sanctification – glorification. The final stage in the salvation process is the ultimate sanctification of the believer — the future glorification of the believer which is realized at resurrection when the believer will be transformed into the likeness of Christ and presented to the Lord “without spot or wrinkle” as holy. This also is accomplished at a single time and by God alone.
If you deny Progressive sanctification, that is an awful lot of verses that you have to ignore about how believers are, through these mutual responsibilities, to play a role in each other’s growth and maturity (Progressive sanctification). We are to teach, challenge, encourage, admonish, correct, and support one another in love, promoting growth in Christlikeness.
Limiting a husbands role and responsibility toward his wife to just (one form of) loving her (sacrificially) and ignoring all the other ways the bible says that God (Christ) loves us (His bride the church) AND all the verses that instruct us how we are to interact with other believers just ignores too much of God’s word.
Can’t do it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s theology, which is downstream of scripture. No theology—no matter how well-developed—can override what scripture actually says.
The verbs and participles in verses 26 and 27 are Aorist. They indicate that the action is not ongoing with respect to time. When the Bible speaks of salvation (e.g. resurrection), it often speaks of it in the past or present tense and refers to it as already accomplished (e.g. John 3:36): which it has through Christ’s death and resurrection. Our future resurrection—what you call ultimate sanctification—is already completed, though it remains temporally.
Paul’s plain language in Ephesians 5:25-27 does not carry any sense of an ongoing process of sanctification, a theological concept not found here.
Yes, we are. Justification is by faith alone—accomplished through Christ’s death and resurrection—was completed within us on the day that we heard and received. If your church has told you otherwise, it has taught you falsely.
Loving sacrificially is complete love.
There is no greater love than sacrificing one’s life for a friend. We should love others as much as God loved us, his friends for whom he sacrificed himself. (John 15:12-16)
Paul does not say “Husbands sanctify your wives…”, he says “Husbands love your wives…” and uses Christ’s example of sacrifice for the sins of the church as the highest form of love that we are to imitate.
Christ sanctifies—positional, progressive, and ultimate—we do not. We are not to imitate his sacrifice, for we cannot, but rather to imitate his sacrificial love that he alone demonstrated through his ultimate sacrifice. This is why Paul uses the language he uses.
If you read this as “Husbands sanctify your wives…”, you miss the very point he was making.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is correct – nothing can happen that will cause us to lose our salvation. But we can in a sense “walk away” from our salvation. Hebrews 10:26,29 makes this abundantly clear.
So if a wife continues to deliberately sin against her husband, even if such sins do not involve sexual immorality, she in a sense has “walked away” from her marriage. She living on the edge of a precipice and should be reminded of the fearful prospect of judgment by her husband. And that judgment is divorce.
LikeLike
It seems like you misinterpreted what Jack said. He said that a man shouldn’t love his wife more than he loves Christ.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uhh…. OK. Wife decides she wants to explore the multitudes of sensuality with other men, and husband is supposed to say, “OK, you go girl, I’ll be here by your side and accept whatever you give me on the side.”
Christ believed in hell, which is the rejection of Him and God. Seems like husbands and wives can use that as a guide.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Not at all. Church discipline (if your church actually obeys God’s word in this area) would the the appropriate response for this and MANY lessor sins IMO but since the Bible allows for divorce in this circumstance, it certainly would be appropriate for a husband to inform his wife, should she do this, a divorce would be the result.
LikeLike
I don’t think “Church discipline” is appropriate in a marriage where the man is being defrauded as described. It is his duty to “wash her in the Word.” If she refuses, then he needs to make a choice. Going to the church only hands over to another what is his.
LikeLike
Anonymous,
The Puritans exercised church discipline in cases of defrauding. Church discipline isn’t just for the person being disciplined. It’s also for everyone else who might think of committing a similar sin.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Church discipline is not limited to specific types of sin, only instructions on the escalating progression for confronting the sin. Defrauding certainly fits the bill. Although, in today’s world I can’t imagine a wife would show up before the church to make her case about defrauding her husband. Women who defraud, generally speaking, are willfully disobedient to biblical teaching and cruel towards their husbands. They almost certainly would not care what the church thought, as they could easily move to a more churchian church nearby and create a new community while painting herself as the victim of an emotionally abusive husband who had opinions about what she had to do with her body and said mean things to her like that socially awkward, incel, no woman would have him, probably gay Paul guy did in 1 Corinthians 7.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Philosophical Basis of Secularized Altruism | Σ Frame
Trey,
I can respect your position that you are willing to stay in the face of sexual refusal.
Sexual refusal in the context of marriage is sexual immorality, or porneia. It is defrauding. It isn’t permissible in marriage. A woman who is able to have sex with her husband but who willfully refuses to do so is committing sexual immorality and divorcing her is therefore allowed. Period. Full stop. You can choose to stay and deal with it. I personally would not.
I was no longer going to put up with a wife getting all the benefits of marriage while shirking one of its major responsibilities. I would no longer tolerate a wife willfully refusing the only real benefit I get from marriage. That is no marriage at all, and I was not going to stay if it continued.
In addition, willful refusal while reaping all the benefits she wanted was profound disrespect. She was guilty of another violation of the command to wives to respect their husbands. If she would not respect me, I was relieved of my command to love her.
Analogize it to Christ’s relationship with the church. Christ says, “I’ll go die on the cross for you and save you from your sins and grant you eternal life in heaven, but in return for that, you do what I say and you keep My commandments. If you don’t do what I say and keep My commandments, you don’t respect Me or obey Me, and thus you don’t love Me.” So it is with husbands and wives: “If I have to go out there and toil and work to support you (die on a cross), then you have to do what I say.”
If you won’t do what I say, then I’m not going to die on a cross for you.
Christ says the same thing: “You don’t have to accept My sacrifice. You don’t have to do what I say. If you want to reject Me and My commandments, that’s fine. Then you, not I, will pay the price for your sins. You will hang on that cross forever.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
A woman who willfully refuses her husband sex is not a wife and thus does not get the benefits of being a wife.
LikeLiked by 3 people
thedeti,
This is not biblically true. Just like there are no clauses when it comes to the wife’s obedience to her husband, there are no clauses when it comes to a husband’s duty to love his wife.
What love looks like in different situations is a good topic for discussion. For example, an openly defiant and disobedient child requires actions in their best long term interest that may not feel loving a the time because discipline is hard. I’d posit that the same applies to a wife as the best long term outcome is for the family (and for her) is to stay together and work through their issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The topic of Tough Love is a good one. There is a modern (usually progressive) idea that love is always kind. Kindness actually being how love should be properly measured.
Properly defining what love actually is, that love cares for the eternal growth and development of another soul, is essential if “God is Love” is going to reflect truth.
I too would like to see more of this discussion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
My $0.02. I endured nine years of a sexless marriage before divorcing my second wife.
During those years, I suffered. Not to the extent one suffers from physical pain, but the emotional toll was considerable. I prayed on it. I discussed it repeatedly, and painfully, with my spouse, and nothing changed. She had internalized the part of the modern feminist trope that a woman has damn near no real responsibilities to her husband, save perhaps not having sex with other men. And then I prayed on it some more. Year after year. It became clear that her behavior toward me was not going to change.
This was all before there was a manosphere that filled in so many of the blind spots I had in intersexual dynamics, the base nature of the sexes, etc. Everything I read back then about the circumstances I found myself in was principally “The Pretty Lies” — and the recommendations to me contained therein were utterly ineffective. It didn’t help that she outranked me in SMV and likely was never genuinely physically attracted to me.
This may not be good theology, but I more or less resolved that the institution of marriage, which I regard as an important thing in our civilization, becomes a big fat nothing if there are no temporal consequences for a marriage partner to essentially defecate over the marital contract / covenant by shirking a fundamental spousal responsibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Should slaves revolt from their cruel masters? Or should they suffer unjustly, endure pain, be punished for doing good, and take actual physical beatings?
LikeLike
What’s your point?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you saying…
(1) FarmLegend was a cruel master that Mrs. Ex FarmLegend should have to endure?
OR
(2) Mrs. Ex FarmLegend was a cruel master that FarmLegend had to endure?
OR
(3) Marriage is state licensed forced servitude to the “ol’ ball and chain”?
If #3 is it, then I can see #2 also being a possibility. Except that in state licensed forced servitude, FarmLegend is biblically justified in jettisoning Mrs. Ex FarmLegend for certain acts of sexual cruelty. So it’s probably not #3 which makes this all very difficult given that FarmLegend is the one in marital authority over Mrs. Ex FarmLegend and was not being cruel sexually.
I think you may need a better course of reasoning for any analogy you might want to make.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is not an analogy. Many men on this forum believe that it is acceptable to divorce when the suffering becomes too great—that failure to do so is cuckoldry—but this is explicitly not what the Bible teaches.
In reading Peter—who instructs slaves and spouses to endure suffering—we find that there is no practical limit to the suffering for Christ except that of resurrection itself after death. In reading Christ, we find that the Christian is blessed when they are persecuted and that we will be reviled for our faith.
Paul teaches that a Christian must not divorce if his unbelieving wife is willing to stay with him (i.e. not divorce him). Peter teaches that slaves must endure anything from their cruel masters and that wives and husbands must endure in the same way for the sake of Christ.
“Did God really say?” Yes, yes he did.
LikeLike
That’s a nice false dichotomy you got there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Then scripture stands condemned. Peter is very clear which one is a valid response and which one is not. Paul returned Onesimus—runaway slave—to his master Philemon. One cannot be in rebellion and also in obedience. One cannot do right by doing wrong.
LikeLike
You do realize that there’s a whole book of the Bible devoted to slaves escaping their masters, right?
LikeLike
Derek,
Your analogy to a slave suffering for the good of the faith and divorce is a horrible one.
First, husbands are the head of the wife and she is to submit to him. That would put the husband in the authoritative position, not the subordinate position so there are difficulties understanding if the husband has to endure suffering at the hands of his subordinate? The answer is that if the subordinates rise up, the one in authority has the right to send them on their way to avoid the headache. This is a really bad comparison relationship for marriage, even though you are trying to get the point across that this life will require suffering for Christ.
Second, porneia IS a justifiable reason to end the suffering in marriage. It is such an egregious sin of disloyalty against the innocent spouse that God permits the dissolution of the covenant. A husband can choose to suffer the pain of a defrauding or cheating wife in marriage as part of his faith, but he doesn’t have to. Divorce is not the ideal and it was not the intent from the beginning, but it is a biblical course of action no matter how uncomfortable you are with that truth. And this means that if she crosses the porneia line he has the option to end the suffering and not have it count against him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
While indeed God heard the cry of their suffering, God made explicit to Pharaoh the reason in Exodus 8:1:
God did not rescue the Israelites because they were slaves nor merely because they suffering. He rescued them because he had a purpose for them in service to God as a chosen people under the older covenant and the new to-be-established Mosaic Covenant. God’s plan required freeing them to enable their service to him.
But Christian slaves are under the New Covenant. They are to suffer without any threat or retaliation, as described by Peter, following in Christ’s example on the cross. There is no behavioral exception for suffering, nor any promise of relief from suffering in this life. None at all. Christian slaves are to endure everything unto death, even as Christ did. The sacrifice is complete.
It’s not an analogy and it isn’t mine. It is scripture itself that you object to.
Immediately after telling slaves that they must be willing to suffer all at the hands of their masters for the sake of Christ and how Christ suffered all for us, Peter then tells women to submit to their husbands in the same way: fully and completely without concern for suffering. He uses the example of Sarah suffering at the hand of her master, who twice nearly got her raped. Then he proceeds to tell husbands to live with their wives in the same way as the previous two examples: fully and completely without concern for suffering, that nothing will hinder your prayers.
Because Christ had to endure suffering at the hands of those underneath him, as Peter says in 1 Peter 2:21-25. Christ had the power to threaten, to retaliate. He chose not to.
It is impossible to understand why the sacrifice of Christ is spoken of in Ephesians 5:25-27 and 1 Peter 2-3 if you view the passages as focusing on authority. I suppose divorce is logical if you embrace this view of authority, even though Jesus told you divorce isn’t acceptable. But you are not permitted to divorce, and authority isn’t highly relevant to this discussion.
When you suffer it is for the sake of Christ. Whether this is the government persecuting you or your unbelieving spouse defrauding you, your suffering is part of the cross you bear. When a man marries, he forms a permanent covenantal bond with his wife. There are many ways in which a man can deal with suffering under their spouse, but initiating divorce is never one of those options.
It is not. I have a post on this topic on my blog that will be posted this evening, which will involve a pingback here.
LikeLike
Just as He has a purpose for us in service to Him.
Just as we’re a chosen people under the New Covenant.
There’s that false dichotomy again. Who says that being free from slavery requires threats or retaliation?
LikeLike
There is no false dichotomy, for Peter is not saying slaves with cruel masters should be freed. The phrase “[Christian Slaves with cruel masters] are to suffer without any threat or retaliation” is a simple action/reaction, not a comparison of opposed things. If a slave/husband/wife suffers, he/she may not threaten or retaliate, but must endure. If suffer, then endure. If this, do that. Action, response. To Peter, freeing slaves is orthogonal to suffering.
The original comment was this:
A few months ago, Jack asked me if I had any good word to share with the men, rather than all the bickering and distraction. That good word is the Word of God as written by Peter: that when you suffer for the sake of Christ, when your spouse defrauds you and treats you like garbage, bear up under it and be strong. Endure it and do not yield or lash out, for Jesus suffered brutally as well. Your relief and reward will come after you die, when you are resurrected to new life. Bear up under the suffering and do not sin. There is no suffering for Christ—not even a sexless marriage—that is too great to endure for the sake of Christ.
That’s it. I do not counsel divorce, as some do here, for neither Peter nor Paul counseled divorce, but indeed forbid divorce. There is nothing in scripture that justifies divorce due to suffering in marriage, just as there is nothing in scripture that says if a master is cruel that a slave should be freed. Not even if your wife divorces you are you to divorce her.
The counsel received by hurting men on this site is harmful to men. It goes against the received Word of God.
In his section on Divorce, Deep Strength correctly concluded:
God was cuckolded by his own people—over and over again—yet he still wanted them back. They were his. Can you imagine a man loving his wife so sacrificially as that? That is how much we are to love our wives.
LikeLike
Your false dichotomy is that either slaves accept suffering, or they “revolt”.
Those are not the only two options, therefore you’re making a false dichotomy.
Peter is not the only Biblical writer who wrote about slavery or suffering.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The dichotomy is entirely your own invention. Peter has nothing to say about masters freeing their slaves: only masters have the authority to free slaves, as slaves cannot free themselves without rebellion. Thus, there is no dichotomy, but a straight command: if you suffer under a cruel master, you embrace it and do not respond against it, just as with Christ:
Christ submitted himself to His Master. A slave with a cruel master must also submit, just as a few verses later a wife must submit to her cruel master—husband. Peter is no more instructing slaves to seek freedom than he is instructing wives or husbands to seek divorce in the face of suffering—including a sexless marriage.
Nothing in my question or responses implies that I think a slave cannot seek to change his master’s will. Christ also sought to change His Master’s Will in the Garden of Gethsemane, but failing that, he could only chose to endure the suffering. Nor do I think a wife can never oppose her husband’s will.
As far as I know, only Deti believes the submission described by Peter is unconditional…
…which does in fact set up a strict obedience/rebellion dichotomy, to which you did not complain at the time.
So Peter—having established that there is no limit to the suffering one may have to take for Christ—sets that as the standard for marriage. If the suffering one is expected to endure in marriage is not limited, how can anyone justify divorce on account of years of suffering? Even if one has other reasons to divorce—just has a slave may have other outlets to freedom—suffering is not one of them.
We should tell the suffering men here that Christ does not promise an end to their suffering, but that suffering is an expected and blessed part of being a Christ-follower. This will cause many of them to black-pill, lose hope, despair, and fall away, for the message of Christ is a hard message, even though in the midst of that suffering it is only through Christ that we have true hope of things to come.
LikeLike
Derek,
The problem with your argument is that the word doesn’t analogize masters and slaves to husbands and wives. He analogizes husbands and wives to Christ and the church.
Christ’s offer of suffering, atonement, and salvation is only for those who agree to His exchange: trust Me and obey Me, keep My commandments and do what I tell you. If you won’t do those things, then Christ’s offer is not for you, and in that Day He will say, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” Similarly, if a wife commits porneia against her husband, and she will not live with him as his wife, the husband can say, “Since you will not bind yourself to me; I am not bound to you.”
Men are not commanded to suffer under cruel masters, either as slaves to Christ or as husbands to wives. Your analogy makes wives the masters of their husbands which is in no way biblical at all.
Second, divorce isn’t “acceptable”. It’s just “allowed”, because of the hardness of people’s hearts.
This is tangential, but: Are wives to do what their husbands command? Yes. Yes they are. Are husbands perfect? They’re not. That said, I’m still waiting for someone to show me the epidemic of Christian husbands demanding that their wives get abortions or commit felonies.
To the extent that husbands are demanding immorality or criminality from their wives, this is almost entirely because these wives choose to yoke themselves to immoral nonChristian men. That is entirely those women’s fault. God’s law is clear: Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything, in all things. Everything means EVERYTHING; all things means ALL things. All means ALL. Everything, No exceptions, ever.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Then we agree that suffering—which isn’t porneia—does not justify divorce.
Peter does not make this analogy, because he isn’t making an analogy. Slaves are not being compared with husbands and wives, rather they are given the same instruction regarding suffering. If Peter makes any analogy at all, it is with Christ.
Re-read Peter’s analogy. Christ submitted to his master—the Father—and then endured suffering at the hands of others who were not his master, but were indeed beneath him. In not divorcing one’s wife—who is beneath him in authority—he submits to his master—Christ.
I agree with what Deep Strength said about this:
If you choose divorce over suffering, it means you have a hard heart.
LikeLike
Derek,
Not going to respond to this, huh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wasn’t planning on it, because I didn’t think there was anything to discuss. But clearly you see something there that I do not, for I thought we were in agreement. So here we go.
The prohibition on divorce is for Christian men, those who have agreed to his Covenant. If you won’t do this, his offer is not for you. Furthermore…
…I made this exact point in “On Divorce” where Jesus exonerates a man—under Mosaic Law—from the charge of adultery after his unfaithful wife divorces him for another.
Deep Strength delves into this point in more detail than I did. It is very interesting analysis in point 17 regarding 1 Corinthians 7. In verse 12, Paul says that a man is not to “put away” (divorce) the wife who “departed” (separated):
…further noting that…
A husband is relieved of his marital responsibilities—including sex—if his wife refuses to live with him. Note that he was in bondage—slavery—to her through marital requirements, but these are no longer enforced. This is seems to be a clear reference to Exodus 21:10-11…
…where a wife can seek recompense for mistreatment. That is, there is no penalty under the law to the husband for depriving his wife, as she left of her own choice. He must still remain single until her death and she to him, because of the marital bond (see: v39, where this “bondage” does not refer to slavery, but the one-flesh bond).
LikeLike
Ramman,
All this talk is little more than arm chair philosophizing if it doesn’t lead to an exploration of the possibilities in practical application. That’s what most guys are after in reading here.
I read your response post On Divorce (2023/8/2). It doesn’t add anything to the discussion that we don’t already know. In regards to the discussions here at Σ Frame, it reads like you are presuming that defrauded men are searching the scriptures for a loophole justification to divorce their wives. If so, then that is somewhat dishonest of you, because that’s not the main problem with the men who read here. If anything, most men are scrambling for some way to save their marriages, or save their children and whatever is left after their wives divorce gr@pe them. Your views on divorce would be more relevant to the discussion if you answered the questions, “How important is it, or how does it glorify God, to preserve a debased marriage that is devoid of all the characteristics common to a good marriage?” Or, “To what extent should a man fight against a wayward wife in court to prevent her from divorcing him?” I believe the answer to the first is more or less a celebration of the Prophet Hosea, and the answer to the second amounts to slogging through an uphill battle of attrition. Whether these options are either suffering for the sake of Christ or secular altruism is up for debate.
You know, it’s OK for you to say, “Here’s what the bible says, and here’s what I believe it means… But I can’t very well relate to your situation, so take it for what it’s worth. I’m here for you, bud.”
On a side note, you cited Exodus 21:10, which says, “If he marries another woman…”, and then you concluded, “He must still remain single until her death…” A little contradiction there, but it’s best for you to stay away from that argument because it leads to the taboo argument for polygyny which you won’t espouse, and actually works against your stance on divorce.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dishonest? Hardly. It’s a simple observation.
One of your authors encourages divorce for sex refusal, which is indeed a “main problem” with readers. A “loophole justification” for divorce is precisely what is on offer. Why you are covering for such advice is beyond my understanding, but calling me dishonest is a poor distraction.
No, I don’t think so. When someone is publicly encouraging other readers to violate God’s law, it is a good use of my time. You raise good and interesting questions, but they are still a deflection.
Yeah, that’s the same thing said to me when I didn’t comfort Scott to everyone’s liking while he was making personal attacks. Apparently I’m not showing enough feminine feelings-based affirmation. Scott needed money. I believe that six or seven men gave him money. That’s masculinity. That’s getting things done. I’m not anyone’s therapist.
I am perhaps the only one on this forum who only addresses ideas and not the people or their feelings. I don’t embrace the feminine lie that “I just want a man who shows his feelings” and I don’t give men verbal hugs when they are attacking me. If you are manly enough to excoriate someone online, you better be manly enough to accept criticism without having your feelings stroked. I respect each man enough not to manipulate his feelings, and I encourage everyone to do the same.
The last time you complained that I wasn’t giving men a good message, I encouraged them as Peter said: suffer greatly for Christ and endure, rejoicing in your suffering with no expectation of resolution, for in doing so you may lead others to Christ and your glory will come after death. Indeed, this is precisely the message underlying my “On Divorce” post: endure your bad marriage and do not try to escape it through divorce, for God doesn’t tolerate divorce. But this message of encouragement is not wanted and I’ve since been criticized for it. People who want pats on the back and hugs can get those from others.
I have a public email address. If anyone wants my advice or assistance they can reach out to me. It’s happened before, you know. It’s a private thing.
The relevant part of Exodus 21:10-11 is the marital duties of a husband towards his wife, which is not specific to polygyny. When Paul says (in 1 Corinthians 7:15-16) that when a wife leaves—separates from—her husband, he is no longer required to fulfil those duties even though he remains married, that is, the covenental marital requirements of Exodus 21:10-11 do not apply to him. Whether or not she leaves him, he may not divorce her (1 Corinthians 7:11). It would make no sense to say that he is relieved of his marital responsibilities if she had divorced him and they were no longer married. The point is, even if she did divorce him, he’s still married and not allowed to divorce her. So even if defrauding was implicit divorce (a questionable interpretation of porneia built upon a questionable interpretation of Jesus’s “exception”), it still wouldn’t allow a man to divorce his wife.
I’m not sure why you think OT polygamy (yes, polygamy: see Michal’s two husbands) has any bearing on the discussion. Unless you think Jesus and Paul permitted polygamy, it’s a non sequitur. Regardless, divorce is still not permitted even in polygamous relationships, so I fail to see the conflict.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A wife who promises only to “not have sex with other men” is not promising marriage.
A wife who lives with you, accepts the emoluments of marriage but provides her husband no “benefits” other than abstaining from sex with others and with her husband, is not a wife at all and the relationship she has with her “husband” is not marriage.
Your wife was never truly married to you. Or, if she was, she was not when you divorced her. She had already left and divorced you in her hardened, blackened heart years before you legally divorced her.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Let’s get to the nub of this. For the eleventy billionth time.
There’s two things here: Christ’s allowance of divorce for porneia; and the Pauline privilege stating that believers are “not bound” to unbelievers who will not “stay with” their believing spouses.
Jesus says divorce is allowed for porneia (sexual unfaithfulness). A wife’s willful refusal to have sex with her husband is porneia. It’s defrauding and is a form of sexual unfaithfulness.
Derek is talking in his comment about the Pauline privilege, which commands that a believer husband married to an unbeliever wife stay married to that unbeliever as long as she consents to “stay with” him. A wife “staying with” a husband means her willingness to live with her husband AS HIS WIFE. A woman living with a man as his wife means everything that entails, including having sex with him if he wants that.
If she willfully refuses sex with him she is not “staying with” him. She’s already left him. She’s already divorced him. She’s already separated herself from him. The fact that they live together under the same roof is of no moment. If she will not have sex with him, she has in effect divorced him already.
Marriage is a sexual relationship. Sex is the sine qua non of marriage. Married people have sex. It’s the only thing married people do with each other that they’re not to do with anyone else. If you don’t f_ck, you ain’t married. If she will not f_ck you, she has not consented to be, or stay, married to you. The Catholics recognize this, where they say you need four things for marriage, the last of which that the husband goes into his wife and he knows her. Until that happens, the man and wife are not married because they have not been joined together as one flesh.
The wife’s sexual refusal tears and rips at that joined flesh. The wife’s sexual refusal injures, and in some cases, mortally wounds, that joined flesh. And it is almost always the wife who refuses.
A wife who won’t have sex with her husband has, for all intents and purposes, separated from and divorced him. All that is left is for the formality of physical separation of living space and the wife seeking somewhere else to live and someone else to provide for her.
Husband is to wife as Christ is to the church. Christ offers His sacrifice and eternal life; in exchange, you submit and do what He commands. Likewise, husband toils and provides support; in exchange wife submits and does what husband says (including giving husband sex when he reasonably wants / needs it).
Christ says, “If you don’t want to do what I say, that’s fine. Then my atoning work on the Cross is not for you; and you, not I, will pay for your sins.” Likewise, a husband is within his rights to say, “If you don’t want to do what I say, if you don’t want to have sex with me, that’s fine. Then I will not provide for you or be married to you; and you, not I, will pay your way through the rest of life.”
Father God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone” and gave him woman. Man was created for God; woman was created for man. Men and women are flesh. Men were created to want and need fleshly union with women. If a woman agrees to live with a man as his wife she necessarily agrees to and consents to sexual congress. If a woman does not want to provide that then the man needs to separate from her immediately and is fully justified in doing so.
Divorce is allowed, not blessed. God will never bless a divorce. God will, however, allow a divorce for porneia, mostly because of the hardness of human hearts (mostly the hardness of female hearts). The believer is “not bound” to an unbelieving spouse who willfully refuses to “stay” (i.e. be a spouse). Women’s hearts are usually the ones that harden up and get seared. A man is justified in leaving and divorcing a hard-hearted woman.
LikeLiked by 6 people
By the way, this is not deti saying this. This is all scripture, tradition, experience, and reason, lived out over a couple of thousand years in our Christian tradition. It isn’t just men who have duties and obligations to their spouses. Women have duties to their husbands. Women have obligations to their husbands.
It is high time that women be held to the representations and promises they make and the vows they take. If they don’t want to make promises to a man or take vows to a man, that’s fine — then they can do it all themselves and men don’t owe them anything and they need to stop whining and complaining that men just want to masturbate into their vaginas and don’t want to marry them.
I’m beyond sick of hearing and reading women’s complaints about how men just want to have sex with them and won’t commit to them. I really am sick of it. Ladies, it’s this simple. Here are your choices:
(1) Pick one man, latch on for life, and do what he says.
OR
(2) You provide for your own financial support while you search in vain for a man to commit to you, and you and those men use each other for validation, affirmation, and sexual gratification.
There. Those are your choices. Pick one. Unfortunately, society has allowed you to do (2) for about 10 years and then you half-a$$edly revert to a very, very poor facsimile of (1) only as a last resort.
Don’t blame me. Don’t shoot me. I’m just the messenger. I’m just holding a mirror up to y’all’s faces.
LikeLiked by 5 people
This is why the “sex = marriage” argument has staying power, despite the practical difficulties it presents for our post sexual revolution fallen culture.
LikeLike
Sex is necessary for marriage, but is not by itself sufficient to create marriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sex is like gasoline to an engine. Gas does not make the engine but it is necessary for it to function as intended. If there is an issue with the gasoline, the engine won’t operate at it’s optimal level. Without gasoline, the engine can still be repurposed to have some usefulness, but all of those options are far inferior to the outcome achieved when an engine runs on gasoline as it was designed to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@RPA,
I’d say it’s more like motor oil. You know, the lubricant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oscar,
I actually thought about using oil in the analogy. Moist, slippery, helps pistons glide in and out of the cylinders and once the engine gets up to operating temperature you can hit the gas and listen to that engine roar!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sex creates marriage, but this is not sufficient to continue a marriage. The latter requires husband and wife to remain husband and wife — to not divorce. Sex is insufficient to sustain the marriage (i.e. prostitution; casual sex). Anyone can create a marriage and immediately discard it, but…
What God has joined together, let no one separate.
…that violation of God’s command does not make the marriage void merely because one or two people have decided that God’s inviolable decree is invalid. No one would think that sex was insufficient to create marriage if everyone obeyed God and stayed married after they had sex. So why do we think that disobedience to God proves that sex is insufficient to create marriage? The saying, “[marriage] is not by itself sufficient to create marriage” is nothing more than an assertion that human will can override God’s decree, not proof of the insufficiency of sex to produce marriage.
LikeLike
Another thing here:
I’m really getting tired of women saying and believing that the only obligation they have to their husbands is to not have sex with other men. No. That is not sexual faithfulness. That is not “staying with” a man. That is not “living with a man as his wife”. Abstaining from sex with other men while at the same time refusing sex to a husband is porneia and is sexual unfaithfulness, plain and simple, no two ways about it.
Wives have a full panoply of duties and obligations to their husbands.
— Sexual congress as often as her husband reasonably wants it.
— A clean womb for fertilization and carrying of children.
— Bearing children
— Rearing and raising children
— Keeping and maintaining a home
— Keeping themselves busy with the things of home and community
— Not going from house to house idly gossiping and being neighborhood nags and busybodies
— Not complaining but rather doing everything as unto the Lord
— Training up daughters to be wives and mothers, showing and teaching by example
— If they have questions about things said at church, to ask their husbands
— Submitting to her husband in all things (all things being ALL THINGS, EVERYTHING)
— Doing what her husband asks with respect to housekeeping and remunerative work
Women, if you don’t want to do this, that’s fine. Don’t get married. Or don’t get married in the church (and whatever relationship you have will not be marriage, but something else). And don’t look to men to carry out typical husbandly duties like security, protection, and provision, because if you are relieved of your duties, then that means men are relieved of theirs. If you don’t have to submit, we don’t have to provide. If you don’t have to provide sex, we don’t have to give you anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Testify, brother!
Deti brought out my Pentecostal upbringing.
But seriously, we old married dudes need to teach this to our sons and any other young men who’ll listen. This is much easier to do before marriage, and it works better.
This is how it works before marriage.
When calling out a woman’s bad behavior, it’s important to be as unemotional as possible. Look her in the eye, and as calmly as you possibly can say something like…
“That was disrespectful (rude, whatever). I don’t like it, and I will not tolerate it.”
Then leave. Walk away. That let’s her know you mean it. Some women will apologize as you start walking away. Some will call later and apologize. Some will never apologize. (Good riddance!) Either way, now you know something about her character. If she doesn’t apologize right away, don’t call her. Let her call you. If she never calls, you dodged a bullet.
She needs to know that you’re willing to lose her.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oscar,
The only think I would change is that I’d use expectations and disappointing rather than tolerate. Tolerate has more of a hard line confrontational feel to it.
For my sons, I’d want them to try,
“That was disrespectful (rude, whatever). I don’t like it, and after getting to know you I thought you were different and I didn’t expect that. Frankly, it’s a little disappointing and has given me something to think about.”
Then do exactly what you said and wait to see what she does. This is 100% a male $h!t test to see what kind of woman she is.
The point is to both encourage her to be better while letting her know that her actions put the relationship in jeopardy. The strategy also plays the emotional up and down that women thrive on. There is the uncertainty and a little fear, hopefully followed by a genuine apology, and reconciliation. It’s all the emotional roller coaster parts of a Hallmark Christmas movie in one shot!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@RPA,
I like that. My way is more of a sledgehammer. Yours is more of a rapier.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Men, you need to stop accepting this from women.
You need to stop accepting wives putting all kinds of conditions on submission. Stop accepting poor treatment from wives. Stop accepting wives who won’t act as wives.
Stop dealing with women who clearly don’t have what it takes to be wives. Stop talking to them, stop dating them, stop having sex with them.
Refuse to accept impolite and rude treatment from women. Start calling it out. Refuse to deal with women who treat others this way.
Stop accepting poor treatment from women, especially from your wives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That would be any woman who subscribes to any aspect of feminism (e.g., egalitarianism). That would of course be 98+ percent of all women, including the ones most of us are married to.
LikeLiked by 3 people
feeriker — This was Eve. This was what caused John Adams to coin “despotism of the petticoat”. It is the rebellious solution to the “problem that has no name”. Every generation in history has dealt with rebellion against God by rebellion against his order. Men rebel against God when we don’t follow his commands. Wives rebel against their husbands and God by not following scripture on submission.
The real question is not the persistency and consistency of women’s rebellion, it is how men have dealt with it. Some advocate the strategy of suffering, where men are to perpetually pick up quarters at The Blue Oyster Bar and count this as an act of faith. Others advocate politely passing on the company of a woman for a more self directed life of their own choosing. My personal take is for men to go thedeti route of setting expectations and holding their wives to them. When those standards are based on biblical principles for marriage, this is one of the chief means God uses to sanctify married women.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pingback: On Divorce - Derek L. Ramsey
In the comments section of The Philosophical Basis of Secularized Altruism (2023/7/31), I mentioned that Christians share a large portion of the blame for pathological altruism because they twist scriptures in ways that have that exact result.
I mentioned three examples.
1) Twisting the Parable of the 99 to justify BLM riots.
2) Reading “judge not” and ignoring the rest of Matthew 7.
3) Abusing the commandment to love the stranger to justify open borders.
Then, along came Derek to demonstrate one way in which this happens in real time.
1) Compare marriage to slavery with the husband in the role of the abused slave.
Sign me up! Right gents?
2) Set up a false dichotomy.
Slaves apparently have only two options — endure the suffering, or “revolt” (“threats or retaliation”).
3) Assiduously ignore scriptures that contradict one’s conclusions.
The same Holy Spirit that inspired St. Peter to write that slaves should submit to masters (1 Peter 2:18-25) also decided to devote an entire book of the Bible to slaves escaping their masters (Exodus). The same Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to ask Philemon to emancipate Onesimus (Philemon 1:15-16), and according to Church tradition the same Holy Spirit inspired Philemon to obey St. Paul and emancipate Onesimus.
The same Holy Spirit inspired King Solomon to write that “the borrower is slave to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7), and that a man in debt slavery should “deliver yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, And like a bird from the hand of the fowler” (Proverbs 6:1-5).
Furthermore, the same Holy Spirit inspired St. Peter to write that we should submit to government authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17), and the same Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to record Jesus saying, “when they persecute you in this city, flee to another” (Matthew 10:23), even though the same Holy Spirit inspired James to write, “count it all joy when you fall into various trials” (James 1:2-8).
A man who believes that God doesn’t contradict Himself has to reconcile all of that.
And no, none of that justifies remarriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why are you going there with him Oscar? He told you, he’s not making an argument, but thinks he’s only playing the non-involved role of repeating scriptures, like a Bible app. That means, in his mind, your arguing makes as much sense as it does to argue with Bible Hub.
Similar to a couple of days ago, when he said one view, but not his necessarily, was……
We all come here to share our viewpoints to grow, but there is only one person who thinks he is only being shaped by a clinical adherence to what the word says. I think this is the source of a lot of the extreme difficulty people have communicating with Derek. He implies the rest of us don’t read the Bible for what it says, but he does, and even to the point, it’s not his argument when you disagree with him.
Reminds me of Fauci, arguing with him is rejecting science.
Very frustrating for me to follow as a lurker with seemingly no edification.
Deti and you asked Derek what was his point responding to FarmLegend. He never did respond directly, so there hasn’t been a fruitful conversation.
If someone said the slave passage to FarmLegend at a bar, then if you asked, “What do you mean by that?”, you’d get a straight answer from most folks. “He should’ve continued suffering instead of divorcing her as the more godly option.”
See? Done in one sentence, instead of two days of inference and arguing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve responded multiple times.
First, in my first response I clearly stated:
Second, I stated in my follow-up comment that:
Fourth, my post On Divorce (2023/8/2) clearly states that divorce is never acceptable: it is not even an option, let alone the less godly one.
The number of sentences is clearly not the problem here. Why did you feel the need to write a whole comment, when you could have blatantly misrepresented me in just one sentence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you were correct, then my arguing would make as much sense as arguing with Bible Hub. Do you agree that the Word of God is self-evident and not subject to debate or any decision, inference, or assertion of man?
LikeLike
This is the explicit view of Christian Patriarchy expressed many times on this forum: that Christian complementarians, egalitarians, and feminists do not read the Bible for what it clearly says in plain language, but is in fact rebellion to the Word of God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s tragic to see RamMan commit a category error (assuming Christian Patriarchy is the same as Christian complementarians, egalitarians, and feminists) and thereby destroy the good faith of his argument.
LikeLike
Pingback: Who will Take Care of Men? | Σ Frame
I hit like by accident. I think it’s loving that Jack cares to offer an explanation for his comment. Being so much higher in IQ than I am, I just took Derek’s statement as too difficult to try to understand. One of those areas that God made us different.
Maybe Derek is changing topics to score a point on something else, “Aha! Got you! You admit I’m the only one who cares what the Bible says.”
Splitting the distinction between patriarchy and complementarianism seems pointless to me like Derek did, and a distraction from my plain and clear point, which was, that Derek, probably unintentionally, had positioned himself as caring more about what scripture says than do other folks. For your sake Derek, and for the glory of God, May it be so. But if so, can you communicate more simply so your points can be more helpful?
Even here, it seems you are playing a game instead of communicating in a way for average IQ people to understand. Derek says, “the forum says….” Does that mean you are once again not speaking for yourself but instead are making an observation? I get confused between when you are writing as Derek, and when you are writing as third-person “super-genius” making “objective” observations (that are supposed to infer something else that should supposedly make a clear point about something).
LikeLike
Pingback: The Next Step | Σ Frame
Aaannd, right on cue…
Dr. Orion Taraban has just produced a video on how most men are romantics at heart.
At 2:22, he says,
At 5:00, he says,
LikeLike
Pingback: The Essence of the Black Pill | Σ Frame
Pingback: Summary of Chemistry (Testosterone) | Σ Frame
Pingback: The History and Current Value of Vetting | Σ Frame
Pingback: Are College educated women less likely to divorce? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Ideal Women Don’t Exist | Σ Frame
Pingback: Good Relationships are Chosen and Developed, NOT “Found” by Chance | Σ Frame
Pingback: Brides are Subject to Vetting | Σ Frame
Pingback: Why Is Disproving Arguments So Hard? - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: 2023 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Laws of Human Nature and Boundaries | Σ Frame
Pingback: The most successful strategy is NOT perfectly altruistic. | Σ Frame
Pingback: Christian Detachment is a Boundary | Σ Frame
Pingback: 6. The Law of Evaluation | Σ Frame
Pingback: Boundaries 101 for Dummies | Σ Frame
Pingback: Misinterpreted Models | Σ Frame
Pingback: Connecting the Dots | Σ Frame