Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

May 31, 2016March 8, 2024 Artisanal Toad3 Comments

It is with frustration that I have to say that I lack data on one of the biggest problems facing the church and culture today in terms of marriage. We lack data because nobody understands what marriage is according to the Bible because for 1500 years the church has taught lies about marriage and sex. In fact, even though study after study has been done and boatloads of money has been spent, they ask the wrong questions because the lies the church tells have worked their way into law and we don’t know the answers to critical questions because definitions have changed. Take a look at the following graph:

Notice the divorce rate on married women is less than 10%. Got that? Because that is all the solid data we have. Every other group representing 1, 2, 3-4, 5-9, 10-20 and over 20 partners all represent adulterous unions. Because all women are virgins when they marry and if some guy joined himself to a woman who was not a virgin when he got to her… it means she is actually married to someone else.

This is probably the real reason we see the divorce rate jump from less than 10% to almost 30% with one previous partner (her husband): the current union that’s referred to as a marriage is actually an adulterous union. With the exception of N=1, every subsequent partner was and is an adulterous partner. Yet, due to the change in the definitions we have lots of theories trying to explain why the more sexual partners a woman has before “marriage” the harder it is to make the marriage work. The simplest explanation is because they don’t understand her “marriage” is actually a case of adultery.

The truth is there isn’t any solid data. From what we see and know, we have multiple possibilities and issues regarding everything that’s N>1:

The so-called “marriage” is actually an adulterous union, God won’t bless it.
Except for the 1st one, all previous partners have been cases of adultery.
It is possible all of the problems stem from the fact the union is adulterous.
It is possible that it’s all because of the number of sexual partners.
It is possible the real problem is a combination of any or all of the above.

The only way to have insight into the real problem is if we had data on women who were unknowingly married and later ended the initial marriage they never intended. If that happened and they later legitimately married, what would be the outcome? We don’t know.

I suspect the outcome would be worse than the less-than 10% divorce rate of intentionally married virgins but not as high as the unintentional adulterous unions, but we have no data. In fact, we won’t have that data until women understand the true ramifications of losing their virginity because there are plenty of women who think they’re single and eligible to marry but they aren’t. Do what we call “divorce rates” really reflect the propensity to divorce? I’d say not, because nothing but adultery explains the jump from less than 10% with intentionally married virgins to the almost 30% with the women who were on their second partner, but it was a case of ignorant adultery.

Think of what Jesus said in Luke 12:47-48:

“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few.”

Is it possible that at a certain number of partners they know what they’re doing is flat-out wrong and God punishes them more harshly? I see plenty of room for variation, justice and mercy all rolled into one. What we don’t have is any data on women who repented, got rid of their first marriage, later legitimately married as a non-virgin and tried to make a go of it. While I’m sure there are differences with the adulterous unions highlighted in the graph, what are the differences? Will we then see that the number of previous sex partners doesn’t make that much difference, or will the number of previous sex partners still affect the data, just at lower rates than adulterous unions? Again, we don’t have the data necessary to say anything.

That’s sad.

But, it gets worse. Keep in mind these studies are based on self-reported data. I think it’s safe to say that for some women being a virgin at marriage is a big deal and there is incentive to lie about it. It’s also reasonable to say that 2 out of 10 did lie about it because we already know that this is an area very sensitive to women and they will lie about it.

The divorce rate for women claiming to be virgins at marriage is roughly 10%, which is 10 divorces per 100 marriages. So, if 20% of the women claiming to be virgins at marriage lied and were actually in adultery instead of being legitimately married, that puts their real divorce rate up around 30%, which is 6 divorces for those 20 marriages. That leaves 4 divorces for the other 80 marriages, or a real divorce rate for virgins of 5%.

I assert that the major problem with what we call divorce today is actually adultery, because God is not mocked.

Just to give you an idea of what this really means, I graphed the increase in divorce risk going from the 5% divorce rate for a legitimate marriage compared to the adulterous unions.

On a brighter note, the Chart on Marriage is getting pretty close to being done (it still needs work). Check it out, there’s something there to outrage everyone.

The Easter Bunny And “Zanah”

May 23, 2016March 8, 2024 Artisanal Toad20 Comments

This is Zanah. Did she just take that off, or is she just carrying it? We’ll never know, shall we? Zanah is like that…

On my travels through the interwebzs, I once again stumbled across further evidence of the Easter Bunny’s nefarious work and the insidious damage done by his scheming minions. We all “know” the Easter Bunny isn’t real, but under the right conditions almost everyone claims he exists. What amazes me is no-one recognizes all the easter-eggs he’s dropped over the centuries and the damage they’ve done… this is an example:

The Hebrew word “zanah” (whoring) refers to a man who has voluntary sexual intercourse with a woman other than his wife, or a woman who has voluntary sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband. By definition, “zanah” also includes all forms adultery and prostitution. Yet some people have made the false claim that Scripture does not speak against sex outside of a marriage covenant. They claim that the Hebrew word “zanah“, at least as it’s used in Scripture, only refers to sex in exchange for payment (prostitution), denying that it can also refer to sex apart from marriage (promiscuous sex). This article intends to debunk such false claims by demonstrating conclusively, from Scripture, that “zanah” does NOT mean “prostitution” exclusively, but rather “whoring” or “fornication” in general.

I am absolutely convinced that these folks are very sincere in their faith, but sincerely ignorant as well because the Easter Bunny got to them. Their ignorance is by design and I want you to see not only the truth, but how this ignorance is sincerely used to propagate lies. Further down that page is the key to the whole thing that conclusively proves the work of the Easter Bunny. They are convinced that the standard of marriage is the A-J perversion of equally matching exclusively-committed monogamy.

Scripture demonstrates that whoring occurs when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his wife (including when she prostitutes her body for hire). Scripture demonstrates that adultery occurs when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is another man’s wife (including when she prostitutes her body for hire). This is why every single case of adultery is also whoring, yet not every case of whoring is necessarily adultery.

Obviously, these folks don’t understand The Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24), but honestly, it isn’t their fault. It isn’t so much that they are wrong, but that they cannot be right. You say the Hebrew word “zahah” is a sin? Great! Have you seen Romans 4:15 and 5:13 recently? No? Well check this out:

“for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.”

“for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

If we put those passages together, we have something like this:

“Where there is no Law, there can be no violation; and while we know sin it in the world, without a violation of the Law, there is no sin imputed.”

Catch that? Although sin exists in the world, when the Bible specifically calls something “sin” it’s because there is a specific prohibition in the Law and a violation of that prohibition makes it sin. So, look at the Hebrew word “zanah” and what, specifically, are the violations of Scripture that “zanah” might be referring to? Let’s see:

A man may not uncover the nakedness of any close male relative (Leviticus 18:6).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother (Leviticus 18:7).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his sister (Leviticus 18:9).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his half-sister (Leviticus 18:9).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his daughter’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife’s daughter by his father [half-sister by father] (Leviticus 18:11).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:12).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:13).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s brother’s wife [aunt] (Leviticus 18:14).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s wife [daughter-in-law] (Leviticus 18:15).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife [sister-in-law] (Leviticus 18:16).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter [step-daughter] (Leviticus 18:17).
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her son’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17). [Polygyny ONLY]
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17). [Polygyny ONLY]
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her sister as a rival while the woman is still living (Leviticus 18:18). [Polygyny ONLY]
A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman during her menses (Leviticus 18:19).
A man may not have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife (Leviticus 18:20).
A man may not have anal sexual intercourse with another male (Leviticus 18:22).
A man may not have sexual intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
A woman may not have sexual intercourse with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).

OK, that’s 12 instances of incest, 3 instances of incest that are restricted to polygynous marriages, 1 of adultery, 1 of male homosexuality, 2 of bestiality and the ever-favorite, having sex with a woman (to include your wife) while she is on her menses. But, they left something out!

What about all the instances in which sex played a part in the act of idolatry? The word “zanah” is as often translated with an idolatrous connotation as well as with a sexual connotation, and sometimes… both. Because a man or a woman can commit idolatry, which makes a sexual act that would have been lawful a case of sexual immorality. And the victims of the Easter Bunny all scream “NOOOOOOO! as they pull out their lexicons and dictionaries and make longwinded arguments about why the Easter Bunny is right. Except that he’s wrong, and he intentionally lied about this stuff.

Did you notice there is not one prohibition on sex with a prostitute back in the Law? That’s almost a trick question because it doesn’t appear on the list, but idolatry is forbidden and part of many of the idolatrous practices was having sex with cult prostitutes for money or with ordinary individuals for free. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 condemns and prohibits both male and female cult prostitutes. But not ordinary money-for-sex prostitution. So actually, what would be perfectly legitimate sex, if done in the context of idolatry is now a sin. Because of the idolatry. But the Easter Bunny needs the idolatry separated from the sex to claim that sex is sinful. The Easter Bunny hates sex.

Even in the New Testament, where 1st Corinthians 6:16-17 forbids Christian men to use a prostitute, there is nothing forbidding a woman, even a Christian woman, from working as a prostitute. That passage is actually not quite what you think, but the fact remains, there is nothing in all of Scripture that forbids or condemns a woman (even a Christian woman) from selling her body as a prostitute.

Notice there is not a single reference, anywhere in the Law, that prohibits a man from having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry, whether he is married or not. It is not a sin.

But if some lawful act is done under the auspices of idolatry, it’s a sin. The act of sex with your wife is not a sin but with your neighbors wife it is a sin. Some might say, yeah- well, they’re different people. OK, ordinarily sex with your wife is not a sin, but if you have sex with her while she’s menstruating that is a sin. Same act, same two people, one is a sin and the other isn’t. The jumbled up focus on the word “zahan” is because there is no prohibition on men having sex with eligible women. Certain Bible scholars know that, but they don’t know why so they assume its sinful because for 1500 years the Easter Bunny has been telling people it’s sinful. So, they redefine “zanah” to mean anything but marital sex. The fact that it’s not prohibited doesn’t matter, it’s “zanah” so it must be sinful.

The prohibition isn’t there and the reason is the Law of Marriage, but nobody knows that because the Easter Bunny and his minions have hidden it in plain sight. These sincerely mistaken folks even continue into the New Testament, spotting a tie-in between the word Hebrew word “zanah” and the Greek word “porneia” that indicates they mean the same thing:

The verse in 1 Corinthians 10:8, “Neither should we commit whoring (porneia), as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell” links the Greek word porneia with the Hebrew word zanah. Paul is referring to the thousands of men who committed “whoredom” with the daughters of Moab [Numbers 25:1]. Paul is clearly condemning these acts of sexual immorality for married as well as unmarried men.

And even though the men of Israel had idolatrous, adulterous sex with the women of Moab, these guys can’t see that. All they can see is sex without a marriage so it must be a sin. Prohibitions? We don’t need no stinking prohibitions! We’ve got “zanah”

But, let’s look at the elements of “zanah” in this mix. The women who did this were not virgins, which means they (according to the Law of Marriage) were already married. So, they were having adulterous sex as part of the process of worshiping their heathen gods. That is the very definition of sinful “zanah” but these guys completely skip the idolatry and the adultery and only focus on that which isn’t even prohibited: sex without being married. But that sounds really weak so they play the translation game: The word in Hebrew doesn’t mean what they want but it’s translated into English as “fornicate” because that’s what the Easter Bunny said to do. Let’s define “fornicate” as sin and now we get our prohibition!

The bottom line is this. The Hebrew word “zanah” means some form of adulterous sex or some form of idolatrous sex. It also means an ordinary prostitute or the use of an ordinary prostitute. Calling someone a “zanah” might mean they are an ordinary prostitute but even if she was, she still hasn’t committed a sin. Other than cult prostitution (we just covered that with idolatrous sex) there is no Law against prostitution or using a prostitute. However, anyone studying this will be lost until they understand The Law of Marriage so we’ll assume folks can educate themselves and we’ll compare and contrast:

This “Zanah” Is Sinful

If a married woman commits adultery she is a sinful “zanah”
If a married prostitute commits adultery she is a sinful “zanah”
If a cult prostitute has idolatrous sex, she is a sinful “zanah”
If any eligible woman has sex as part of idolatry, she is a sinful “zanah”

This “Zanah” Is NOT Sinful

If a money-for-sex prostitute services men, she is zanah but their sex acts are not sin.
If an eligible woman has sex with a man she might be called zanah but not in sin.
If an eligible woman has sex with a man (married or not) and consents to marriage, their act of sex is the consummation of their marriage and they are married. She is not a zanah.
If an eligible non-virgin woman has sex with a man (married or not) but does not consent to marriage, they are not married and while some might call her a zanah, the sex still isn’t a sin.
If an eligible virgin has sex with an eligible man (married or not) they are married. She is not zanah, they are not “fornicating” or having “premarital sex.” They are married, not in sin.

How did all these definitions get so screwed up? The simple answer is the Easter Bunny has had a long time to put this plan into action. In order to understand how things got this way, let’s go back some 1600 years or so and look at quotes from church history:

The Church Fathers’ views of sex were dominated by ascetic values, for most of the Fathers were, at one time or another in their careers, monks or hermits. The most important patristic authority on sexual matters, the one whose views have most fundamentally influenced subsequent ideas about sexuality in the West, was St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Augustine held strong, deep seated convictions about sexual relationships and the role of sex in human history, convictions that flowed from his own experience and his reflections upon it, convictions that brooked neither denial nor dissent ⁽³⁾.

Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man’s disobedience to God’s designs⁽⁴⁾. Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other’s body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful ⁽⁵⁾. Augustine’s underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond⁽⁶⁾.

Not only was sexual desire a basic and pervasive evil, according to Augustine, but it was also a vice that no one could be sure of mastering. We are born with it and it lasts as long as we live. No one, whatever his age or position in life, can confidently claim to have conquered it ⁽⁷⁾. “As I was writing this,” Augustine noted in his polemic against Julian, “we were told that a man of eighty-four, who had lived a life of continence under religious observance with a pious wife for twenty-five years, has just bought himself a music-girl for his pleasure.” (page 80)

Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine’s negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection ⁽¹³⁾.

Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources ⁽¹⁴⁾. But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential ⁽¹⁵⁾. (page 82)

Patristic writers assumed, as Roman law did, that consent made marriage. They rejected the notion that consummation was an essential part of marriage. It made no difference whether a couple ever went to bed together; so long as they consented to marry one another, that was what counted ⁽⁶³⁾. If consummation was not essential, it might follow that sexual impotence constituted no reason for holding a marriage invalid, and Augustine at any rate seems to have subscribed to this view ⁽⁶⁴⁾. (page 92)

The marital debt created a parity of rights and obligations between the spouses. Each had an equal right to demand that it be paid; each had an equal obligation to comply with the other’s demands. Equality of the sexes in marriage meant equality in the marriage bed, but not outside of it ⁽⁶⁹⁾. Just as each spouse was entitled to sexual service from the other on demand, so each was entitled to require sexual fidelity from the other. Neither had a right to seek sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, even if the other party was, for example, absent or ill and thus sexually unavailable ⁽⁷⁰⁾. Cessation of marital relations did not break the bond of marriage, just as the beginning of sexual relations was irrelevant to the contracting of marriage ⁽⁷¹⁾. The evident aim of patristic matrimonial theory was to separate marriage as far as possible from its sexual component, defining it as a contractual union, separate and distinct from the sexual union of the married persons.(page 93)

What you should be able to see is that the church, the guys who were in charge of holding, preserving, transcribing (reproducing), evaluating and translating the Scripture had a vested interest in defining all sex as sin. Their attitude, to this day, is “we decided what Scripture is and we decide what it means.” To illustrate this, look at the public pronouncement at the conclusion of the Council of Trent:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, [THE COUNCIL] decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs, to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.

Just read the underlined part and you’ll understand what they were saying. “We don’t care what you just read, we don’t care what you learn and we don’t care what you know: We decide what Scripture means.”

If you ever have the privilege of debating a Catholic priest, especially a Jesuit, you’ll find that they have an unshakable faith that their position is correct no matter what the text says. This is because the church, in addition to the text of the Scriptures, has the collected traditions and teachings of the church which are held to be the equal of the Scriptures. If there is a conflict, then the matter is decided in favor of the teachings and traditions.

Got that? The guys who laid down the traditions and teachings were the ones who hated sex, thought sexual pleasure was the most wicked of filthy sins in existence, rejected Biblical teaching that the consummation of the marriage actually formed it and instead claimed it took public consent; who claimed that both men and women were to be held to the same norms of sexual behavior and decided marriage was to be monogamous with an exchange of permanent and exclusive commitment.

It is the result of this Easter Bunny teaching that causes protestants to be convinced that “zanah” means that any sex outside the bounds of established matrimony is sinful. That marriage is some form of covenant made by men and not between the man and God. That the actual marriage takes place when the man makes some form of public confession of commitment to marriage to his woman.

That’s Easter Bunny teaching, not what Scripture says.

Augustine, Contra Julianum3.11.22, in PL 44: 713: “Nam cum hoc opus in minibus haberem, nunciatus est nobis senex octaginta et quatuor agens annos, qui religiose cum conjuge religiosa jam viginti quinque annos vixerat continenter, ad libidinem sibi emisse Lyristriam.” Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 405.
Augustine, Sermo151. 5, in PL 38: 817: “Ergo semper pugnandum est, quia ipsa concupiscentia, cum qua nati sumus, finiri non potest quamdiu vivimus: quotidie minui potest, finiri non potest.” See also St. John Cassian, Conlationes4.11.2 and 4.15.1, in CSEL 13: 105, 110, as well as his Institutiones6.1, in CSEL 17: 115.
Miiller, Lehre, pp. 22-23; Lecky, Hist. of European Morals2:281-82.
Augustine, Contra Julianum4.14.71, in PL 44: 773-74.
Augustine, Contra Julianum4.5.35, in PL 44: 756: “In quibus [cupiditatibus malis] libido prae caeteris est, cui nisi resistatur, horrenda immunda committit.”

Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 390-91; Edward A. Synan, “Augustine of Hippo, Saint,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph R. Strayer et al., 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982- ; cited hereafter as DMA) 1: 646- 59. See also Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 58-59; Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality, p. 36.
Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum1.13, 1.26, 1.28, in PL 23: 229-30, 246, 249; Gregory of Nyssa, De virginitate2, in PG 46: 323-24; Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 45-46; JoAnn McNamara, “Cornelia’s Daughters: Paula and Eustocium/’Women’s Studies11 (1984) 12- 13.
Jerome, Adv. Jov. 1.49, in PL 23:280-81; Aries, “L’amour dans Ie mariage,” pp. 118-19; Philippe Delhaye, “Le dossier antimatrimonial de L’Adversus Jovinianum et son influence sur quelques ecrits latins du Xlle siecle,” Mediaeval Studies13 (1951) 68. Jerome found some strands of Stoic ethics so congenial that he numbered Seneca among the saints; De viris illustribus12, in PL 23: 662. But his use of the Stoics was highly selective; Colish, Stoic Tradition2: 70-81.

Augustine, D e consensu evangelistarum2.1.2, in CSEL 43: 82; De nupt. et concup.1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224; Ambrose, De institutione virginis6.41, in PL 16: 316; D’ErcoIe, “Consenso,” p. 28; Jean Gaudemet, “Indissolubilite et consommation du marriage: rapport d’Hincmar de Reims,” RDC 30 (1980) 29; William Joseph Dooley, Marriage according to St. Ambrose, Studies in Christian Antiquity, no. 11 (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1948), pp. 1-2.
Augustine, De bono coniugali7.7, 15.17, in CSEL 41: 196-97, 209-10; Josef Lamer, Die Storingen des geschlechtlichen Vermogens in der Literatur der auctoritativen Theologie des Mittelalters: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Impotenz und des medizinischen Sachverstiindigenbeweises im kanonischen Impotenzprozess, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mainz, Literatur, geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (1958), no. 6 (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1958), p. 300.

Augustine, Epist. 262, in CSEL 57: 621-31; Borresen, Subordination and Equivalence, p. 104; Berrouard, “Saint Augustin et L’indissolubilite,” p. 141.
Caesarius of ArIes, Serm. 43.7, in CCL 103: 193-94.
Augustine, De nupt. et concup. 1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224.

The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve

May 22, 2016March 8, 2024 Artisanal Toad17 Comments

The polite folk who somehow feel like I’m fixated on sex should notice something that I’ve pointed out a few times: The very first commandment God gave to mankind was “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Translation: “Go at it like rabbits.”

Because God said so.

The very first Law that God gave was the Law of Marriage, and as we’ve seen, marriage begins with the act of consummation. Because the entire concept of commitment and intent is wrapped up in a single act, which once done cannot be undone. As we’ve already noticed, the Law of Marriage is significant in what it says as well as what it does not say. The Law of Marriage says that it’s a grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage and it explains how that works. But what it doesn’t say is that while it is a grant of authority to initiate marriage, there is no authority granted to end marriage. Likewise, there is no restriction on how many times a man can initiate marriage. But let’s put that in terms of commitment, because that is the standard by which marriage is defined:

The man provides her with:
Permanent Commitment, Non-exclusively.

The woman provides him with:
Permanent, Exclusive Commitment.

That is absolutely foundational to God’s design for marriage, sex and male-female relationships, but that’s as far as things got before something happened. Something really big, so big it was literally world-changing and it effected all of Creation.

Remember that we’re talking about Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden. Sin had not yet entered into the world. Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the evening. They were naked and unashamed.

Does anyone believe that Eve was anything less
than the ideal woman?

I’m dead serious when I say that. This was the dawn of creation, there was no sin in the world. God created Eve, from Adam, and all women are descended from Eve, so does anyone believe that women are getting better? Is there any woman alive who could do a better job of being a wife than Eve? Seriously. In other words, are women getting better?

For the answer, look at women today…
quod erat demonstrandum

God gave them one rule. Just one, single, simple rule. And the ideal woman, with no job, no stress, no children to chase, seriously- what did Eve have on her plate other than obedience to that one single rule? “Do not eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” And what did Paul say about it? He said Eve was totally deceived.

Notice that I’ve said nothing of Adam. He knew what he was doing, because God had said “In the day you eat of it you shall surely die.” After his wife had eaten of the fruit, Adam knowingly decided to eat of the fruit, choosing to die with his wife rather than refuse and live, knowing she would die. In doing do he displayed a remarkable lack of faith in God, but given the way men are about their women, it was understandable.

And do you not see how Satan took advantage of the woman’s weakness to then use her as a weapon to take down the greatest man who ever lived?

So, God held court and He was faced with a decision. What do you do with women, when at their best and I mean at the top of their game, in a world in which there is no sin and no distractions like other women, social media, television or you name it… when in the absence of all that they demonstrably can’t obey one simple rule?

You appoint a guardian for them because
they’ve proved they are not competent.

But God, being God, did it in a certain way. He gave Eve a desire to be ruled and He said “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.” This is where hypergamy came from, which we’ll talk about later at length in another essay.

Now, we already know that when God gives a command like “he shall rule over you” that He implements these commands with laws, statutes and ordinances. So let’s find out what this “rule over you” means. On its face it’s pretty clear, her husband is in authority over his wife and she must obey him. But what happens when others are involved? What happens if she takes a vow or makes an oath or an agreement that has consequences? We start with Numbers 30, the Law of Vows. You can read it for yourself but I’ll just make a few condensed points of what it says.

1. If a man makes a vow or agreement, he must keep it. A man is commanded by God to honor his word. For the Lord has no patience with fools, if you make a vow do not delay carrying it out.
2. If a daughter in her youth, in her fathers house (under his authority) makes any vow or agreement with obligating consequences, her father has not just the authority but also the responsibility to review that decision. If he says nothing, it stands. If he objects he is free to nullify it, cancelling the vow or agreement and all obligations that devolve from said vow or agreement.
3. When the woman marries, her husband has the right and responsibility to review all her previous vows and agreements her father previously approved and if he chooses he can nullify any or even all of them. After that, any vow or agreement with obligating consequences or even the rash words out of her lips that bind her, he has the authority and the responsiblity to review them and if he agrees it stands. If he doesn’t like it he has the authority to annul it, cancelling any and all obligations that might be involved.

That pretty much sums up Numbers 30. There are those reading this right now who can remember a time when a wife had to have her husband cosign a contract or other legal instrument with binding obligations. Numbers 30 is where that came from.

When we get to the New Testament the “he shall rule over you” is very specifically laid out in no uncertain terms. Notice that in the Ephesians passage, the wife is instructed to submit herself to her husband in the same way she is to submit to God. In other words, her husband’s authority over her is the same as God’s authority over her.

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24, NASB)

This provokes all manner of screaming. “My husband isn’t God. He’s only human!” Implicit in this argument is the idea that the wife’s responsibility to obey her husband is dependent on his righteousness. In other words, if her husband doesn’t act like God then she doesn’t have to obey him. As it turns out… No. That idea is shot down here:

“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.” (1st Peter 3:1-6, NASB)

However, what the New Testament did that the Old Testament did not do was to also instruct husbands in the treatment of their wives. The husband is specifically commanded to love his wife. It isn’t enough to manage her and hold her accountable, the husband is now commanded to love his wife.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:25-27, NASB)

Looking at that passage, it’s clear that a husband is to display his love for his wife by holding her accountable. This is made all the more clear in a later passage in which Christ describes how He loves His church:

“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.” (Revelation 3:19, NASB)

It should be pointed out that reproof is verbal, but disciplining encompasses physical discipline such as corporal punishment. That, of course, elicits howls of outrage from women who do not care to be held accountable, but this is part of what husbands were commanded to do. We also see instruction to husbands from Peter:

“You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.” (1st Peter 3:7, NASB)

Remember that the Law of Marriage was put in place to implement the command to “Be fruitful and multiply” and that happens with this thing called sex. Bedrooms and bathtubs full of sweaty, screaming, sex. That brings us to a most interesting point in this body of law that implements the command “he shall rule over you.” As it turns out, even though she has a guardian, she has rights when it comes to sex.

“The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.” (1st Corinthians 7:3-5, NASB)

In plain, ordinary everyday language that means neither the husband or the wife have the right to say no to sex, except for limited periods of time devoted to prayer; and then only by mutual consent. Where did that come from? They are one flesh. Her body belongs to him, his body belongs to her. The woman who claims “my body, my choice” is claiming she isn’t actually married to her husband.

So all this submission stuff that women rebel against, it all goes back to Eve. Because women simply cannot admit that when we look at all of womankind, Eve was the superstar. The top of the pile, the first and best. And when women at their best, at the top of their game with no distractions… when they can’t handle obedience to one rule… Seriously. She had ONE JOB. Obey ONE RULE. And she blew it. Thus proving that women need a guardian because they aren’t competent. And that’s not saying that men are automatically competent because they have the “why” chromosome, but in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. And, as God said,

“HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU.”

Marriage, Sex and Whores, Oh My.

May 21, 2016March 8, 2024 Artisanal Toad8 Comments

Today we look at one of the special passages of the New Testament, 1st Corinthians 6:12-17. Contained in this passage is one of the most interesting and informative passages in the New Testament, verses 14-16. First, the text:

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

Pro Tip- Things to keep in mind when looking at this passage: Why did the men at that time visit prostitutes? To have sex, without commitment, without sin. To have sex, because that’s why men go to prostitutes, there is no other reason. Without commitment, because they can have sex with the prostitute (the act of initiating marriage) without getting married. Without sin, because under the Law, there was no prohibition anywhere on a man using the services of a prostitute. Most people don’t know that.

Notice how Paul begins this passage, saying “all things are lawful for me, but not all things are beneficial.” Paul is, in fact, addressing men who knew that nothing in the Law forbid them from having sex with a prostitute. Seriously, I defy anyone to point to any specific provision in the Law that forbid ordinary sex for money with a prostitute ^[1].

Paul goes on to say food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Unspoken? Sex is also a need. We are now seeing Paul set up the contrast between the physical and the spiritual. “Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body.” This is the foundational point on which Paul is about to teach.

“Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.” Here we see the beginning of the application. Christ is risen and one day we will be raised through His power. In fact, we are spiritually united with Christ. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” As Christians, our physical selves are spiritually members of the body of Christ. And because we are members of the Body of Christ…

“Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!“

Shall I take the physical which is joined spiritually to Christ, and physically join to a prostitute? It’s a nice play on words, the spiritual member of Christ being joined physically as a member of the prostitute. Paul uses the strongest available negative: “May it never be!”

Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her?

This is the key. The one who joins himself to a prostitute physically becomes one body with her. How? With the act of marriage. What does the act of marriage lead to? The spiritual joining of husband and wife that God does when He makes them one flesh.

Spiritually, you are married to Christ as a member of His body. How then can you engage in the act of becoming one body with a prostitute, an act designed to make the two one flesh? And just to make sure we didn’t miss this point, Paul says “For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.“

Catch that? Paul quoted from Genesis 2:24 and making the point (which he also made in Ephesians 5:30-32) that the one-flesh spiritual union of marriage is the same as the spiritual union the believer has with Christ. When a man joins himself to a prostitute, he engages in a physical act designed to cause God to bind the two together as one flesh. And when a Christian does that, because he is a member of the body of Christ, he brings Christ along for the ride. With a prostitute.

Remember: the men have sex with prostitutes because the entire affair is designed get sex without the sex resulting in marriage. The men are abusing the authority to initiate marriage that was granted to them in Genesis 2:24, which allows a man to have sex with any eligible woman, because that is how a marriage is initiated.

Cows, Milk and Commitment…

A man has the authority to buy as many cows as he can afford, and he seals the deal of buying the cow by milking her. This authority confers on him the right to milk any cow that’s not already owned, otherwise how would he purchase the cow? The world is filled with cows and some have impressive teats. A man can look and even touch up to a point, but he demonstrates that he’s buying the cow by milking her. This situation raises an interesting question. What if a man only wants some milk occasionally, not enough to justify buying a cow? What if he has a cow that’s difficult to milk and occasionally wants to enjoy some fresh milk without fighting for it? These are the sorts of situations in which he really doesn’t want to buy the cow- he just wants the milk. But the act of milking the cow is the act of buying her.

So, is there a way to get the milk without buying the cow? Ask a Jewish lawyer.

The answer to the riddle is the difference between eligible to purchase and available to purchase. The solution is to work out a deal to rent a cow that isn’t for sale. She is eligible to purchase so the man isn’t forbidden to milk her, but even though she is eligible for purchase she isn’t available for purchase. He can’t buy the cow because she isn’t for sale, but he can rent the cow for a certain amount of time and enjoy whatever milk he gets. No matter how hard he milks her, nobody can say he bought her because she’s not for sale.

This is how it works with a prostitute. She is not married (if she was this would be adultery) and not a virgin (otherwise the marriage would be automatic), which means she is eligible to marry. However, in order for a marriage to result from sex with her, she must give her consent to marry. The prostitute isn’t going to give consent because she’s in the business of renting, not selling, so she is not available for marriage. The men want the milk but don’t want the cow. To ensure they don’t have to buy the cow they use a professional who sells her milk for a fee. Paul makes the point that this is an abuse of their authority to marry.

Words Mean Things

I recently had an argument with a Jesuit who was adamant that the “shall cleave” portion of Genesis 2:24 meant “commitment” because the Hebrew word “dabaq” that is translated as “cleave” is used to mean “commit” or “cling to” in every other usage in the Hebrew texts. I disagree with the legitimacy ^[2] of that assertion, because none ^[3] of the other uses of the word “dabaq” is used to describe the initiation of marriage. However, it doesn’t matter.

The reason is we don’t need to look at the Hebrew word “dabaq” when used in some other context to try to figure out what it means in the context of initiating a marriage, because Genesis 2:24 is translated into Greek with Apostolic Authority, twice. Once when Christ quoted Genesis 2:24, recorded at Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:8; and again when Paul quoted the same verse at Ephesians 5:31. In both cases they used the Greek word “kollaó“ which means to glue, to unite, to engage in sex.

A Jesuit might say “Just because you found a Greek word used to translate the word “dabaq” and it’s used to mean sex, once, doesn’t mean the “shall cleave” portion of Genesis 2:24 means sex, because it means commitment.” Well, not so fast. Our Jesuit is holding the frame that sex does not and cannot initiate marriage. The problem is, the word “kollaó“ is used in 1st Corinthians 6:16 to specifically describe becoming one body (sex), which leads to God making the two one flesh. If you try to point this out to someone who knows the argument, there will be a barrage of linguistic arguments and they’ll try to convince you that the word “kollaó“ doesn’t mean sex, that it means commitment. When you hear that, just remember why men go to prostitutes: To have sex and avoid commitment.

The issue is resolved with the question: “What specific act does the man engage in to signify his commitment to marry?” The answer is sex. It’s true that a man can agree to a betrothal period and a wedding celebration and publicly take vows of commitment. That, however, isn’t a requirement. It’s actually very similar to joining the military. The first major event is the “swearing in” in which the recruit raises his right hand and takes an oath of commitment and allegiance. And guess what: It’s meaningless in terms of commitment. The recruit isn’t actually on the hook for the terms of the contract until he or she signs the contract. No signature, no contract ^[4]. So let’s look at how we know that sex is the man’s definitive act of committing to marriage.

Paul used “kollaó“ in verse 16 of 1st Corinthians 6 to describe the act of having sex with a prostitute. That’s the passage we have been looking at and Paul makes it clear that the act of sex is what is meant when the word “kollaó“ is used to translate Genesis 2:24, because he describes sex with a prostitute in the context of initiating marriage and quotes from Genesis 2:24. Paul also makes it clear that “kollaó“ is not the becoming of one flesh, it is the process by which one becomes one flesh.

We are talking about men who are having sex with prostitutes. It is preposterous to claim that Paul is forbidding men from making a commitment to a prostitute. Men do not go to prostitutes to commit, they go to have sex without commitments. As the old saw goes: “You don’t pay an escort to come, you’re paying her to leave when you’re done with her.” So any claim that Paul is talking about anything other than sex with the prostitute is ludicrous.

Again, the men go to prostitutes in order to have sex without the possibility of becoming married. The ONLY purpose of being with a prostitute is sex. And up until Paul wrote these words, there was nothing to prohibit the men from doing so. The man signifies his commitment to marry by having sex, therefore the man is authorized to have sex with any eligible woman. What Paul was pointing to was the fact that the men were intentionally engaging in the act of marriage, knowing they were with a woman who would not consent to marry, in order that they might enjoy the act of sex without being burdened with a marriage. The woman was a prostitute and offered such a service but they didn’t want to marry her and had no intention of marrying her, because she was a prostitute.

Think of this as Paul saying, in effect,

“Look- just because you are not forbidden to do this doesn’t mean it’s beneficial. We all know sex is a need and that’s what those parts of your body and hers are used for, but that’s only temporary because this world is passing away. You are now Christians and your body is holy to the Lord. You may think this is just getting an itch scratched and it isn’t forbidden… but when you “join” yourself with a woman you are engaging in the act of marriage by becoming “one body” with her, the act that causes God to join you as one flesh. For He has said “and the two shall become one flesh.” Do you not understand the spiritual significance of what you are doing? Just because you arranged things so you can have sex without becoming married by doing it with a prostitute, that doesn’t mean this somehow stopped you from becoming one flesh. Even though she is a whore, you are still becoming one body with her when you “join” yourselves in the act of sex and that is the process by which you become one flesh with her; just like when you “join” yourself to Christ you become one spirit with Him. You are part of Christ’s body, so don’t join Christ’s body to a whore!”

[1.] It is true that cult prostitution was forbidden, but cult prostitution was part of idolatry. There is no prohibition on ordinary prostitution anywhere in Scripture and in spite of the prohibition on men using prostitutes in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, there is no corresponding prohibition on women working as prostitutes.

[2.] It is reasonable to believe that the same word used in the same context in different places all have the same meaning, but Genesis 2:24 is unique in describing the initiation of marriage. The claim it means only commitment without countenancing the proposition that sex is the method that a man uses to signify such commitment (otherwise, why would he do it?) is preposterous.

[3.] Given the beliefs of the early church with respect to sex, it is easy to see how the word “dabaq” would not be interpreted as meaning any reference to sex, even when it was warranted, such as in 1st Kings 11:2, which describes Solomon with his wives (1000 of them). If one strips out the descriptions, the text reads “Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh. Solomon held fast to these in love and his wives turned his heart away.” A far better reading of the text would be “Solomon loved women and took many foreign wives in addition to the daughter of Pharaoh, 1000 in total. Solomon loved having sex with them and they turned his heart away.”

If the text were rendered that way, it would mean the root word “dabaq” (only used three times) was used once to mean clinging with a hungry need, being clung to tenaciously and sandwiched between clinging to and being clung to is the kind of sexual desire characterized by the man with 1000 wives. Taken together, that is a good description of newlyweds.

[4.] Interestingly, this doesn’t change when the person is drafted. The order (court enforceable) that the inductee receives from Selective Service is to report to an induction center. There is no law that requires anyone who reports to the induction center to take an oath of service or to sign the contract to serve, but the oath is always administered first and that oath is used to pressure those who took it to sign the contract. The nature of the system requires consent and consent is not recognized until it has been demonstrated in the proper way. All that said, there is also nothing to prevent them from signing the contract for you.

Framing Marriage; Feeding The Dog

May 7, 2016March 8, 2024 Artisanal Toad27 Comments

Frame is everything, because frame determines what is in the picture and what isn’t. What you can see and what you cannot see. Frame determines what fits in and what doesn’t. What is allowed and what isn’t. Frame is everything. Nothing illustrates this better than how marriage is framed these days as a strictly monogamous affair. Because that’s not the way God designed it.

The Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) says a lot in a mere 24 words, but what it doesn’t say is just as important as what it does say. We know this because Jesus pointed it out in Matthew 19. Then, as now, people look at the three elements of that passage (shall leave, shall cleave, shall become one flesh) and assume that all of these are the actions of the man. Not so. When the Pharisees asked what the grounds for divorce were, Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24, and pointedly explained “they shall become one flesh” was something God did, not the man, saying “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”

But Christ was making two points here, not one. The first was the real interpretation of what Genesis 2:24 says, the second was to juxtapose what the passage says with what it does not say. He was subtle, but He emphasized what the passage did not say with what He said next, still referring to the Law of Marriage. “For hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way.” From the beginning. Why would that be? Because the Law of marriage granted the authority to the man to initiate marriage and explained the procedure of how marriage is initiated, but that law contained no grant of authority to the man to end the marriage.

And what does that point to? If one thinks about it for a moment, it becomes obvious that it didn’t contain a restriction on the number of wives a man could initiate marriage with.

Under God’s design, a man can have more than one wife because divorce is not permitted.

Under Churchianism, divorce is permitted because a man can have only one wife.

Framing Accountability

Under God’s design, if things don’t work out in the marriage, regardless of what kind of problems there are with the wife, her husband is still stuck with her because he made a vow and entered into a covenant with her. She’s his wife and will be until the day he dies, but he isn’t limited to her. How this would be interpreted is flexible. Everyone understands menopause and the problems that causes, so if it was a wife of a certain age and the husband took a much younger second wife, well, probably not such a big deal. There’s no shame in the changes a woman goes through and the fact that the changes can have a serious impact on marital relations.

But if this was a case of a wife refusing to meet his needs or was known to be rebellious and contentious to the point that her husband hated her, it stands to reason that everyone knows that this wife was hated by her husband. It isn’t something that can be hidden. If he took another wife, that would be open to a much different interpretation than if it were the case that he was taking another wife to meet a need his first wife could no longer meet. Especially if she had not given him a son, because inheritance was very much an issue of importance. We know this because Moses made a ruling (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) on the matter that bears our attention.

“If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and both the loved and the hated have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the hated, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.

Two wives, one loved and the other hated. The question of why the wife might be hated is open to interpretation, but anyone with any observational skills can probably provide a list without thinking about it too hard.

Should he take another wife under such conditions his first wife gets the shame of being publicly identified as such a poor wife that her husband had to take a second wife. Which isn’t going to help with her attitude problem. And everyone understood that bringing in a rival wife would increase the level of conflict in the home. So, if a husband chose to go that route it meant his wife must have been a special kind of failure when it came to doing her job. There was no way to blame anyone else but herself.

In other words, complete accountability for the woman, the vows of marriage are honored (the MAN kept his vows) and the family was preserved, intact. Regardless of what a poor wife she was, she wasn’t kicked to the curb, she continued to be supported and honored as his wife. Because he kept his word even when it hurt. Because that’s what God expects out of men. Under God’s design, the success or failure of a family rests solely on the shoulders of the husband and father. His wife can be a helpmeet or a hindrance, but the responsibility belongs to the man.

Under the rubric of modern monogamous marriage, if a woman is such a poor excuse for a wife that her husband can’t tolerate it, his only “legitimate” option is to set aside his vows of marriage and divorce her because keeping a mistress on the side is considered to be a horrible sin of adultery, an offense to all decent women everywhere. Yes, far better to destroy the family than allow a husband to be honored by a woman who vowed to “love, honor and obey” him. It’s a hell of a twist on morality.

So now we’ve got a divorce and the modern legal theory that women can do no wrong applies, so he will lose his children, half his assets and be sentenced to regular payments for years to come. Because he made a bad choice in who to marry. More importantly, if a divorce occurs it’s generally held that the man had at least some portion of responsibility in that happening, which has the effect of removing some portion of accountability from the woman. Because men are expected to keep their word and honor their vows even when women don’t.

But, it’s worse than that. A wife is under the authority of her husband and even after Moses allowed divorce, a woman had no authority to divorce her husband and there are no grounds for a woman to divorce her husband regardless of his behavior. 1st Peter 3:1 commands wives to submit to their husband even if he is disobedient to the word and win him over, without a word, by their quiet and chaste conduct. Not much of that in the church today.

In the frame of modern monogamish marriage, women use divorce to shift accountability for their own failures onto their husband, destroy the family, ruin their children’s lives and avoid any accountability in the entire process. And they use divorce proactively to steal their husband’s assets and rob him of his children and rob their children of their father.

The monogamy – polygyny issue is all about how to frame marriage in order to allow women to avoid any accountability for their behavior, but it’s also a false dichotomy. The Biblical standard is the man gives permanent, non-exclusive commitment. That means all marriages (unless maybe you’re a king) start off with just one wife. If she does a great job, why add another one? However, the man is permitted to take another wife no matter what the reason, even if it’s only because he wants sexual variety and he can afford it.

With God’s definition of commitment a woman cannot avoid accountability for her behavior because she does not have a monopoly on her husband. She’s exposed to the competition of other women and if she does not compete (do her job well) she can find another woman brought in and promoted above her within the marriage.

With churchian cuck “equal” commitment, a woman cannot be held accountable for her behavior because of the monopoly conditions that allow her to act with impunity. She has no competition within the marriage and the only way around her monopoly is to destroy the family with a divorce.

Again, under God’s design, the majority of marriages have always been and will always be monogamous. The problem enters when marriage is framed as “Monogamy ONLY” because that usurps the authority God granted to the husband at Genesis 2:24 and transfers power to the wife. Polygyny is acceptable under God’s design and as an available option it creates an environment in which women are accountable for their actions.

Women say “I cannot stand the thought of having to share my husband!”

Well, honey, make sure the thought never crosses his mind by being such a successful wife that he doesn’t have the time, energy or inclination to look at other women. It’s called accountability for a reason.

And… don’t take this the wrong way, but your vagina isn’t nearly as special as you think it is. Sex is not this mystical holy grail of marriage. After a while, it’s just sex. Your husband has a need for sex but you can’t fathom that because monogamy puts the woman in charge of sex in the same way an owner is in charge of feeding a dog.

Does It Really Matter Who Feeds The Dog?

Let’s say you have a dog. You have to feed the dog or the dog will die, but feeding the dog is just the most basic task in having a dog. The dog has to be trained and disciplined and cared for and all that takes time and energy. And if you don’t feed the dog regularly with the right food in the right amount, that dog isn’t going to be healthy and won’t respond well no matter what else you do. The dog is going to be cranky and temperamental and will probably do things you don’t want him to do (like digging through the trash) because he’s hungry. And there was a time when everyone knew this.

Yet, you were taught to make a major ceremony out of feeding the dog because the act of feeding him is somehow oh-so-special. That’s what you were always told, because your bowl is special. And you have to be in the right mood for for the ceremony… because you were taught that pouring dogfood out of a bag is just so damn special. Because it’s all about you and your special bowl. But when the dog is cranky and temperamental and isn’t a good dog because he hasn’t been fed, well… that just kills your mood to have the ceremony and feed the dog. Everyone understands that a woman just has to be in the right mood before she can be bothered to feed the dog. He can howl all he wants, she has to be in the mood.

Besides, feeding the dog is messy and it take a whole 5 minutes out of your day to give the dog what he needs. And sometimes he wants to lick the bowl and play with the handles! Who has time for that? While it may feel good for him to be eating out of your bowl, getting fed is something he needs and he really wants it… but that doesn’t matter to you because feeding the dog is not that special to you, it’s just a chore. Sure, sometimes it’s special for you and you enjoy it, but day in and day out it’s just a chore. And a woman has to be in the mood. Everyone knows that.

What you really like to do is play fetch with the dog because that’s all about you and having your desires met. Especially when your friends are around to see how the dog tries to please you. That makes you feel really good. But, it was too much of a chore to feed him and the dog is starving and doesn’t have the energy or the motivation to play fetch. So you complain to all your friends about how horrible your dog is and you don’t understand it at all because the dog has such a wonderful home and such a loving master but he won’t fetch the damn ball when you want him to.

And you spend your time complaining to your friends while you starve your dog of one of the most basic elements of what he needs.

What the dog needs doesn’t require a ceremony with a special spot and a special bowl. Starve the dog and he’ll try to find what he needs in the trash and make a mess of things or wander out on the street looking for food. And naturally you’ll blame the dog for looking in the trash for something you were supposed to be providing for him, not recognizing the fact that under this scheme of things he’s only supposed to be getting his food from you. Well, of course you know that. Everybody knows your bowl is special and he’s only supposed to get what he needs from your bowl. But you’ve got this insane notion that while he’s always hungry and everybody knows dogs are always hungry, he only needs food if you’re in the mood to give it to him.

But, what if your dog had
the right to choose who feeds him?

“Oh… how horrid that would be! My roommate has a bowl too, and hers might be much nicer than mine! I’d hate to have any comparison because my bowl is special!”

News flash: he wants to be fed. Nice bowls are great, but they don’t mean a thing if they aren’t providing him with food on a regular basis… and every woman has a bowl. Once he’s been fed it’s all about how he’s treated. Her bowl isn’t the issue: it’s how she treats him. Treat him right and take care of him and he’ll be too busy watching the place and making sure those damn coons don’t come in the yard to care what the food bowl is like. As long as the bowl has got food in it when he’s hungry. And treats? Treats are wonderful. They motivate. But you can’t confuse food, which is a regular requirement, with treats. You can decide when he gets a treat but don’t make the mistake of thinking his food is a treat. Dog’s know the difference and when he’s well-fed, treats make all the difference.

“Gosh. TREATS! How do I get more treats? I know! I’ll add squirrels to the list! You gave me treats? Now you don’t have squirrels. Wait… fetch? You want to play fetch? OK! Let me go find the ball!”

What did a little kindness and consideration cost you? Now he fetches the hell out of that ball every time you want to play. Every. Single. Time. He has the energy because he is well fed. He has the motivation because you gave him a treat.

Guess who else is motivated? You are. The thought that some other woman would be feeding your dog has a remarkable effect on your mood. Everyone knows a woman has to be in the mood, but it’s amazing how fast she gets in the mood to feed the dog when her roommate is also available to feed him. Because her bowl is special. She’d hate for the dog to get fed from another woman’s bowl. “Gosh, what a GOOD DOG! Want more? I can do that.”

The thing is, if your dog got to choose who fed him, would it really matter who fed him? He’d be getting fed regularly and he’d get his treats on top of that and he’d be keeping the coons and squirrels out of your yard. You could even work out a deal with your roommate and she feeds him and you give him treats, since obviously 5 minutes a day is just too much for you to handle. But if it’s such a huge deal because your bowl is so damn special, either feed the dog or she will.

That’s called accountability and it’s produced by competition. And believe it or not, your roommates’ bowl doesn’t have anything to do with it. It doesn’t matter that you both have a bowl, it’s how often somebody’s bowl gets used to meet his needs. But if you took the responsibility to do your job and fed him regularly (that’s when HE needs it, not you), then your yard would be coon and squirrel free and all your friends would be amazed at how he fetched the ball for you and he’d never even look at your roommate. And when one of the snakes that walk around on two legs shows up, that dog is going to be there to defend you. Why? You think it has anything to do with how special your bowl is? Because you have a magic bowl? If that’s what you think you know nothing about dogs.

THE REASON GOD GAVE YOU THE BOWL
IS SO YOU CAN USE IT TO FEED HIM!

But you can’t comprehend that. You threw your roommate out because she has a bowl and he was hungry and started looking longingly at her. You’re too upset with your dog because he’s starved and temperamental and cranky and won’t make you look good in front of your friends when you want him to fetch the ball. And he’s not in good shape and not exactly motivated to please you because you’re starving him. And the idea that he should be able to get his food from someone else? “OMG! That’s HORRIBLE! I can’t STAND the thought! There needs to be A LAW AGAINST THAT!!!” Because he belongs to you and you alone. Because the system says that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

God said to feed the dog whenever he wants food, that your bowl belongs to him. But that’s crazy fundamentalist wacko talk. The government and the church say you own your dog. You and nobody else, and he isn’t supposed to be fed by anyone else. Even if he’s starving. Because you think your bowl is so special. And you get away with it because the dog belongs to you. He doesn’t get a choice. Because those are the rules.

And you’d think that the dog would run away after he’d had enough, and sometimes they do. But they’re usually so loyal they put up with incredible abuse and stick around until they get sent to the pound.

So you get tired of listening to him howl when he’s hungry and blame him for not being a good dog and ship him off to the pound because obviously it’s all his fault. It can’t be your fault, you’re a woman. He was supposed to be there for you to fetch the ball when you wanted to play but he was too busy howling with hunger. Maybe that’s all it took or maybe you caught him eating out of your neighbor’s bowl after you’d starved him long enough. It doesn’t matter, he wasn’t a good dog so you got rid of him.

When the snakes show up (and sooner or later they always do), it won’t matter whether your ball got fetched. The dog won’t be there to sound the alarm and he won’t be there to defend you. If he was there he’d defend you even if he was half-starved and abused. Because that’s what dogs do. It’s their job to defend you from snakes. But he’s not there. You put him into the system to be ground up and destroyed because he was too starved to be motivated to fetch your ball when you wanted to show off for your friends.

And when they find your body they’ll find that damn ball of yours stuffed in your mouth… but everyone who knows the truth will be too polite to call it poetic justice. The snakes did that so you couldn’t make any noise while they did nasty things to you. And they took their time enjoying themselves while you suffered. The dog would have died defending you from that, but you got rid of him. And all your friends will say how horrible it was that you had such a bad dog that you had to get rid of him and then he wasn’t there to defend you. And it will be sad because if you’d had some accountability you’d have fed that dog and he’d have been a good dog and he’d have been there, willing to die for you.

But you couldn’t stand the thought of accountability and you only fed the dog when you felt like it… because he didn’t have a choice… and now you’re dead. Because you were wrong. It’s not about your bowl, it’s about you, and your fantastic special bowl is worthless if the dog doesn’t get fed.

And the most amazing thing is that some women will think that story is about a dog.

Have You Not Read?

May 5, 2016March 8, 2024 Artisanal Toad12 Comments

SnapperTrx asked a pertinent question in a comment after the previous post:

What do you do when you talk to people who believe in this gospel of mutual submission and servant leadership? Do you actively debate people with this belief (other than online)? I had thought about starting a conversation with some FB friends who hold on to these beliefs, but decided against it. I don’t feel they would listen to a single word, so what would be the point? It seems that it would be more effective to talk to those who question the narrative rather than try to convince those who are already a part of it. What do you think?

Snapper brings up several points. First, how does one challenge toxic and unbiblical doctrines? Second, to what end? Obviously some are more willing than others to hear the truth and the Bible has some good examples of how to do this. Today we have one from the Great Teacher Himself; and interestingly, it covers a toxic doctrine that is still with us today: Divorce. The story is told in Matthew 19, but keep in mind that the purpose of this post isn’t to rant about divorce, it’s to show everyone how Christ handled objecting to toxic unScriptural doctrines that pervert God’s design for marriage.

Before we begin, there is one point that needs to be made. This kind of confrontation cannot be successfully handled unless the person doing it knows the issue intimately and knows what Scripture says at every point. That requires a very high level of understanding, which requires that you not just read, but study, memorize and meditate on the passages involved. It isn’t enough to know what Scripture says in any particular passage, you must know how it relates to the rest of Scripture and understand it in context. Why? Because if you set out to teach you’re held to a higher standard.

If you want “wow” factor, all it takes is calmly quoting various passages at length, from memory, while your opponents don’t even know what chapter you’re in… and they not only look like idiots but everybody knows it. You won’t get challenged on that again.

Watching The Master At Work

Jesus was teaching and some Pharisees approached Him to test Him and asked Him what the grounds for divorce were. They were testing Him, so they didn’t ask an honest question, they tried to phrase the question so that no matter what answer Jesus gave, it could be used against Him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” That, my friends, is what you call a loaded question. Matthew 19 is tremendously misunderstood because the Pharisees thought they were asking about the Law of Moses, but Jesus slapped them down by demonstrating the question was really about the very first of God’s Laws for mankind ⁽¹⁾ the Law of Marriage.

First, the Law of Marriage is 24 words that grant the man the authority to marry and explains exactly how that is accomplished. There are three elements to the Law of Marriage, also known as the “three shall’s.” The man shall leave, the man shall cleave; and (notice that it’s no longer ‘the man’) they shall become one flesh. Jesus is about to explain the significance of that.

While the Law of Marriage did not contain any authority for a man to end a marriage he began, Moses (sitting as the Judge of Israel) later observed that the men were sending their wives away. This created great distress for the women because they were married women. Even if they found another man who would have them, to join themselves to another man was adultery, which was a death penalty offense. Moses issued a judgment, commanding the men that if the wife found no favor in his eyes because he had found some ‘indecency’ in her and he sent her away, he must give her a certificate of divorce.

In this way Moses legalized the process of divorce. The certificate of divorce was the second witness for the wife, proving she was divorced and eligible to marry again. Many would see this as a compassionate move but it was not. It is never, ever a good idea to tamper with God’s design for things. Moses had previously had a case regarding the Law of Marriage, recorded at Deuteronomy 22:28-29. He held fast to the Law at that point, but this time he did not. The problem was the word Moses used (“indecency”) was rather vague. What does that mean? It’s normative and subject to interpretation.

Thus, by the time Jesus had His earthly ministry there were two schools of thought on what Moses meant with that word “indecency” as the grounds for divorce. The Rabbi Shammai claimed ⁽²⁾ that indecency meant a serious problem such as adultery and no woman was to be divorced for anything other than a very serious marital issue. The Rabbi Hillel and his followers took a decidedly different approach, saying that “indecency” was in the eye of the beholder and it could be anything and divorce was authorized if the wife burned her husbands meals.

That is the political issue Jesus is being asked to comment on. To their minds, no matter which way He answered He was in trouble with one of these groups. The modern-day equivalent is “So- have you stopped beating your wife?”

What Jesus did was He asked a simple question that reframed the entire issue. “Have you not read?” That was a slap in the face to the Pharisees, the keepers of the Law. Of course they’d read. Then Jesus slammed them even harder by quoting that which they should have considered but hadn’t: “that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?” Jesus cited the Law, not the amendment to the Law instituted by Moses. Then He hit them hard:

Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.

We now have Jesus, the Word made Flesh, explaining that the man is only responsible for two of the three elements in the Law of Marriage, that God is responsible for the third element of “they shall become one flesh.” There are, therefore, no grounds for divorce.

Was that a home run? No. Like many issues in Scripture it’s more complicated than it appears to be on the surface and this is why anyone who wants to confront toxic doctrine must thoroughly understand what they’re talking about. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The Pharisees should have been dumbfounded, but they immediately came back at Him with a question: If there are no grounds for divorce, then why did Moses (our Hero) say we could divorce our wives? It’s a legitimate question and they put their finger on a dichotomy that Jesus had to resolve. As the Master Teacher He was treading very thin ice with His response, both politically and doctrinally. They set out to trap Him with a question that would put Him in opposition to either the camp of Shammai or Hillel and He was now in a position that could arguably be viewed as being in opposition to Moses. If the Pharisees were on the ball (and I believe they were) they probably couldn’t believe their good fortune and they asked their question “Why then…”

That “Why then…” reveals they knew exactly what Jesus had just done, pointing out a dichotomy between God’s Law of Marriage and the judgment of divorce by Moses. Was Jesus going to take the bait?

“Why then did Moses command to ‘give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?’”

Jesus responded:

“Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”

OK, He acknowledged Moses and recognized the authority of Moses. Yes, Moses amended the Law of Marriage. Then, with all that as a prelude, Jesus explained what Moses meant when he said a man could divorce his wife if he found some “indecency” in her:

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Matthew 19:9 is one of those verses that is widely misunderstood as teaching that a man commits adultery if he marries *any* divorced woman. That is not true, as explained in this post. The net effect of this passage is to point to the significance of 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, where we have an anomalous event. Other than the book of Revelation, 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 is the only passage in the entire New Testament in which the Risen and Ascendent Lord is giving instruction to His church as a direct command.

“But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not ⁽³⁾ divorce his wife.”

The Law cannot be changed, but if one pays close attention, Christ is not changing the Law with respect to divorce that Moses put in place. Not at all. An unbelieving husband may still legitimately divorce his wife for her immorality (c.f. Matthew 5:32; 19:9). However, not that this instruction applies to married believers within the church. Christ is implementing a rule for His servants- it will be as it was in the beginning, no divorce.

Lessons Learned

Know your material and know your opponents. Understand the political issues involved that effect the answers you give. It is imperative that you completely understand what you are talking about before you try to confront someone over what you *think* is a problem with any particular doctrine. Teachers are held to a higher standard and it isn’t enough just to know the material, you must understand it completely.

Frame is everything. Jesus carefully reframed the issue of divorce from being what Moses had said about it back to what God said about marriage. You will not win confrontations with feminists or their white-knight allies by arguing the tenets of their philosophies. Stick to God and what He said. His Word is sufficient.

Speak the truth- especially when it’s going to hurt. He is the Lord Jesus and was able to explain what the third element in the Law of Marriage really meant- that the “become one flesh” was not actually the act of intercourse, it was an act of joining that God did. He was also able to explain what Moses actually meant with the word “indecency.” Notice that when He did, He took a line so strict that His disciples (who were listening) then said “If the relationship of the man and his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” They knew exactly what Jesus had just said- that virtually every single one of the acts a wife could commit that would qualify her for divorce were already death-penalty offenses. In other words, being a rebellious, contentious, disobedient, lazy, slovenly, disrespectful and supremely gifted bitch did not qualify as grounds to divorce a wife.

We have all we need contained in the Scripture we posses. All that is needed is study in order to have the knowledge to oppose toxic doctrine. But, that takes work and time and energy. Not many do that these days.

You will give offense. Understand that taking on bad doctrine and popular misconceptions about what the Bible says will make you very unpopular. Telling the truth by quoting the relevant passages of Scripture and explaining them in context will convict people of their guilt and their sin. That is offensive because no-one likes being called on their sins, especially when they didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.

Look at how the Master did it: He asked a simple question that needs to be asked: “Have you not read?” That is the key in confronting bad doctrine because it focuses on what all Christians are supposed to do. We are to be like the Bereans who studied their Scriptures diligently to know that all they were taught was true. We are to be the same way but very few are. The question is also the set-up for a service ace, which is the proper application of Scripture (in context) that explains why the doctrine is bad.

Model your argument on the Master’s model: In the case of the “mutual submission” and “servant leadership” doctrines, the question to ask is “Have you not read, that He said to the wife- speaking of the husband -that ‘he shall rule over you?’ And for that reason the Law of Vows places a young woman in subjection to her father in her youth and in subjection to her husband when she has come of age. All of the commands to the wife to submit to her husband in the NT were not dreamed up by misogynists, they were written in accordance with the command of God when He spoke to the wife of her husband: ‘he shall rule over you.’” That is the argument that exposes the falsehood of the doctrine.

Know the arguments against. Just as with the Lord, you will get pushback. In this case a popular one is that Christ lifted the curse. Really? And snakes no longer crawl on their bellies? Women are squirting their kids out like watermelon seeds at a 4th of July picnic? Are men still required to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow?

A gentler approach is, instead of focusing on confrontation, to focus on the core passage first. In the case of mutual submission, the core passage is Genesis 3:16 and “he shall rule over you.” There are all kinds of ways to do this, from discussing how that passage is the source of hypergamy, to how that passage is the underlying command of God that all the submission commands to wives in the New Testament come from. In this way, you ignore their bad doctrine is specious and irrelevant. If they bring it up they look like idiots because it’s framed as them now opposing God with bad doctrine.

Has God changed? In this case it all boils down to one question: Is God no longer the same, yesterday, today and forever? That was the underlying point Jesus made in Matthew 19. The only way Ephesians 5:21 can be the “context” with which to take all the submission commands to wives is if God has changed and His curse on women is no longer in effect. So… do snakes still crawl on their bellies and do women still bring forth their children in pain? QED.

And pray for them. They need all the help they can get.

__________________________________________

⁽¹⁾ The first command God gave mankind was to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it and take dominion over it. The second command God gave was the command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The first Law was the Law of Marriage, which implemented the first command of “be fruitful and multiply.” It begins with “For this reason…” For what reason? The reason or cause is the command to be fruitful and multiply. The command has been issued and the Law has been given explaining how this command is to be carried out.

⁽²⁾ Confession time. Understanding what I read has never been difficult for me, provided I either have the correct vocabulary or a good dictionary at hand, although I admit it once took me almost three days to figure out how the infamous Subpart F (Controlled Foreign Corporations) of the tax code applied to my special situation. However, in trying to parse some of the writings by the Rabbi Shammai, specifically to see if I could get to the essence of what he considered “indecency” to be… I finally met my match. I gave up. Compared to him, parsing the tax code is a piece of cake. So, as near as I can tell, according to Shammai, when Moses said “indecency” it was a really bad word and a woman would have to do something really bad to be indecent. Maybe I looked at bad translations, IDK, but he was the other side in the Shammai – Hillel argument over what constituted a legitimate divorce.

⁽³⁾ The meaning of the Greek words translated as “should not divorce his wife” are just as easily translated as “must not divorce his wife” and “must not send her away.” The word “should” must not be thought as providing some wiggle-room when it comes to the issue of divorce, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this post.

The Castration Of The Church

May 4, 2016March 8, 2024 Artisanal Toad2 Comments

Castration is such a descriptive word, but because it brings to mind sharp objects and blood, perhaps that isn’t the best word to use. Perhaps emasculation is a better word. That brings to mind a tool called an “elastrator” that uses a very small rubber band to accomplish the purpose of “bloodless castration.” What it does is it cuts off the blood supply and the testicles shrivel up and fall off. It’s a nasty thing to do, but it’s bloodless, the chance of infection is low and the speed at which it can be done is high.

The modern church uses a doctrinal elastrator these days that causes the destruction of manhood in churchian males and creates enormous problems in many marriages. It’s actually a double-whammy designed to emasculate men and boys and thereby root out and destroy any male dominance they might exercise in order to make the way clear for women to take charge and further destroy men.

These two perverse doctrinal teachings are called “Mutual Submission” and “Servant Leadership.”

As to which of them is more perverse, I will leave to the reader to decide, but they are both taken from Scripture and applied completely out of context in order to support and advance the cause of feminism. Any man heard uttering such words in church with anything other than a tone of contempt has rightly identified himself as a cuck and not worthy of being considered anything other than male- certainly not a man.

Mutual Submission: Challenging God’s Authority

The strange marital doctrine of Mutual submission is taken from Ephesians 5:21 because fembots and their white knight allies claim this verse is the “context” with which to take Ephesians 5:22-24. There are three problems with this, all serious.

First, Ephesians 5:21 is the closing of Paul’s remarks to the church in general before he began his specific remarks to the family. The members of the church, in general, have a relationship to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ in which they are equal in Christ and thus the instruction to submit to one another in fear of Christ is quite appropriate. The problem is, that injunction does not and cannot apply when it comes to the family. The reason is the real context of Ephesians 5:22-24 is Genesis 3:16.

“your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

If the fembots were correct in their claims, it would negate what God said in Genesis 3:16 where the women got cursed. Since women can’t handle being held accountable on anything, it comes as no surprise that they really hate the curse and look for ways to make it go away. Wives are to submit to their husband. Why? Paul and Peter didn’t just pull this stuff out of the air, wives are to submit to their husband because God said “he shall rule over you.”

The same fembots who came up with the insane idea of the “born again virgin” are also trying to peddle the idea that Christ lifted the curse and Genesis 3:16 no longer applies to women. This, however, is demonstrably false inasmuch as snakes still crawl on their bellies, women still bring forth their children in pain and the earth still has thistles and thorns. Obviously Christ hasn’t lifted the curse.

Second, the problem with the idea Ephesians 5:21 is the “context” for the following verses is it not only creates an internal conflict within the immediate text (technically an antinomy), but God has already answered the question of how it should be interpreted. You see, the claim of “Ephesians 5:21 is the context” is a direct challenge to God’s ordained structure of authority that He gave in Genesis 3:16 when He said “and he shall rule over you.”

Essentially it’s the wife saying “We’re equal in Christ, so who are you to lord it over me?”

This happened a long time ago and the challenge is found at Numbers 16:3, which tells the story of when Korah and his buddies challenged the leadership of Moses, whom God had appointed as the leader and judge of Israel. They bided their time and when Moses had the man who was caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath stoned to death, they decided the time was right to make their move. This is how it went:

“They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

Notice the similarities? “We’re equal, who are You to be over ME?” In challenging God’s ordained authority structure, they weren’t just challenging Moses and Aaron, they were challenging God, who put them in authority. What do you suppose God thought of that challenge to His authority? Well, as it happens God decisively answered those who made the challenge in verses 32-35:

“and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with their possessions. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. All Israel who were around them fled at their outcry, for they said, “The earth may swallow us up!” Fire also came forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense.”

Guess that didn’t work out too well for Korah and his buds, did it?

Third, the problem with this crazy idea that “Ephesians 5:21 is the context” is that it’s been converted into a general doctrine and applied to marital relations, completely nullifying the command to the wives to be in submission to their husband. It’s not enough that a passage that applies generally to the members of the church is taken out of context and used to challenge God’s authority, it’s being used to usurp the authority of husbands and damage families in the church.

It’s one thing to pick a verse out of context and get a bad interpretation because of that. This, however, is a deliberate attack on husbands and thus on families using a verse taken out of context in a way that is clearly contradicted by the rest of Scripture and used as a general doctrine by people (leaders) who know better but don’t want to offend their women.

This may not seem to be that much of a problem but this point is probably the worst of the three because it is an indictment of the leaders of the modern church and evidence of their cowardice. We know from the parable of the virgins and from the parable of the talents that Christ is nothing if not just. I suspect that many of these leaders will be bound and cast into the outer darkness and left to wail and gnash their teeth, allowed to do nothing more than look in on a celebration they thought they would be participating in.

Servant Leadership: An Invitation To Abdication Of Responsibility

The other half of this perverse pair of feminist churchian twaddle-points is the idea of “Servant Leadership” that’s based on Matthew 20:25-28

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Once again, we see a verse pulled out of context to become a feminist pretext. Jesus was speaking to his disciples because James and John’s mother had asked if Christ would award her sons the seats of honor on His left and right side. Christ plainly told her she didn’t know what she was talking about and it wasn’t even up to Him to decide, but His Father.

But this passage is the Lord Jesus, a man in His earthly ministry speaking to men, His disciples, about how to act towards each other, not how to deal with their wives. We see that in no way did Christ negate the curse or change the fact that wives are to be ruled by their husbands. To claim this passage does so is to say that Christ, the Word made Flesh, was contradicting himself.

The call to humility is a good one, but with authority comes responsibility. The idea that being humble is justification for avoiding responsibility is dereliction of duty. The husband was placed in authority over his wife by God, who said “he shall rule over you.” None of the disciples was placed over any of the others and God did not command that any of them would be rulers over the others.

In other words, amongst equals, serving others is highly regarded. But when someone is placed in a position of authority, to abdicate their responsibilities in the name of “servant leadership” is, at best, dereliction of duty and at worst, treason.

Mutual Submission: Teach men to abandon God’s structure of authority for marriage in order that wives may not be held accountable.

Servant Leadership: Teach men to abdicate their responsibilities under God’s structure of authority for marriage in order that wives may not be held accountable.

I see a pattern here.

Artisanal Toad's Hall

Mirror

Month: May 2016

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

The Easter Bunny And “Zanah”

Notice there is not a single reference, anywhere in the Law, that prohibits a man from having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry, whether he is married or not. It is not a sin.

This “Zanah” Is Sinful

This “Zanah” Is NOT Sinful

The Reason Feminists Don’t Talk About Eve

The man provides her with:
Permanent Commitment, Non-exclusively.

The woman provides him with:
Permanent, Exclusive Commitment.

Does anyone believe that Eve was anything less
than the ideal woman?

For the answer, look at women today…
quod erat demonstrandum

You appoint a guardian for them because
they’ve proved they are not competent.

“HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU.”

Marriage, Sex and Whores, Oh My.

Cows, Milk and Commitment…

Words Mean Things

Framing Marriage; Feeding The Dog

Framing Accountability

Does It Really Matter Who Feeds The Dog?

But, what if your dog had
the right to choose who feeds him?

THE REASON GOD GAVE YOU THE BOWL
IS SO YOU CAN USE IT TO FEED HIM!

Have You Not Read?

Watching The Master At Work

Lessons Learned

The Castration Of The Church

Notice there is not a single reference, anywhere in the Law, that prohibits a man from having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry, whether he is married or not. It is not a sin.

This “Zanah” Is Sinful

This “Zanah” Is NOT Sinful

The man provides her with:Permanent Commitment, Non-exclusively.

The woman provides him with:Permanent, Exclusive Commitment.

Does anyone believe that Eve was anything lessthan the ideal woman?

For the answer, look at women today…quod erat demonstrandum

You appoint a guardian for them becausethey’ve proved they are not competent.

“HE SHALL RULE OVER YOU.”

Cows, Milk and Commitment…

Words Mean Things

Framing Accountability

Does It Really Matter Who Feeds The Dog?

But, what if your dog hadthe right to choose who feeds him?

THE REASON GOD GAVE YOU THE BOWLIS SO YOU CAN USE IT TO FEED HIM!

Watching The Master At Work

Lessons Learned

The man provides her with:
Permanent Commitment, Non-exclusively.

The woman provides him with:
Permanent, Exclusive Commitment.

Does anyone believe that Eve was anything less
than the ideal woman?

For the answer, look at women today…
quod erat demonstrandum

You appoint a guardian for them because
they’ve proved they are not competent.

But, what if your dog had
the right to choose who feeds him?

THE REASON GOD GAVE YOU THE BOWL
IS SO YOU CAN USE IT TO FEED HIM!