Top things women don’t want men to know about (or just won’t tell you)

Bardelys the Magnificent posted this video in one of the comments:

His comment:

There’s a young chap on YouTube named Casey Zander, who put out a video outlining the things women won’t tell you. Honestly, one of the best videos I’ve ever seen. The gist is this: women want to submit to a dominant frame, but since they have no idea how to create that for themselves, they can’t articulate what that looks like. They just know it when they see it, which is why they can say with a straight face they want one thing and go after another. They don’t know how the sausage is made, they just know if it tastes good (pun intended?) so if you ask them if they prefer certain ingredients or methods they’ll agree with you, then choose the one they want. They have no clue, so it’s up to men to figure out our masculine identity and invite a woman to join. If she rejects you, next.

My comments:

I wouldn’t really say it’s things women don’t want you to know about or necessarily won’t tell you. However, they do generally expect these things out of men unknowingly as these things tend to satisfy their hypergamy.

The basic summary is:

  • How to be a man – “he just gets it,” knows what “safe” means, turned on when she’s told what to do, admission into his frame.
  • How to outwit her – Proactive vs reactive, too much investment, weakens masculinity
  • What she’s thinking – knows his job, cares less about what she’s thinking, no longer own mental point of reference, focused on her rather than on his mission
  • Dominance is her polar opposite – male aggression is sex, ties to belief set, decisive, subconscious frame control
  • Command arousing presence – ability to say no more than yes, not sex focused, words matter, be direct.

I think the points are a bit poorly worded, but he does explain them fairly well.

My summary given Biblical terms would be:

  • Knows what his roles and responsibility for relationships/marriage are and does them (point 1). This naturally makes a man be a man because he knows that he is supposed to be the head/leader and acts like it. This includes things like being a protector and provider.
  • Establishes and maintains natural order (points 2 and 3). A woman’s hypergamy is built in. It has the capacity to go haywire, but all women exhibit it to some degree. If you are in a relationship with a woman you need to be able to recognize when her hypergamy is rearing its head and maintain God’s order in the relationship and focus on God’s mission. Related: Christian masculinity, mindset, and fitness testing. Adam failed this by listening to Eve rather than God.
  • Masculine traits must shine to maintain polarity in relationships (point 4). If a man starts to act less masculine — with masculine type traits being independent, assertive, strength, courage, leadership, etc. — then in most cases the woman will become more and more dissatisfied as well as potentially try to pick up the slack. A man must maintain strong masculinity in order to have good polarity with femininity. Avoid women who respond to masculinity with masculinity themselves (e.g. strong independent women who don’t need no man) instead of femininity. The masculine-feminine polarity creates sexual tension.
  • Men are made not born and why discipleship/mentoring is important (point 5). “Presence” is more or less a combination of the rest of the 3, but how a man generally matures into a leadership role over time. Think of the pastor who has been giving sermons for 1 year versus 20-30. The skill of public speaking, leadership, and consistently doing it with a lot of people through the years. As one gets better at it, one can better discern things with more simplicity and respond correctly with nuance and cut to the chase. Women love competence.

Generally speaking, the various attractive traits (PSALM), masculinity, and leadership, and all such things are learned over time. This is why it’s important for men to be on God’s mission. Better younger than older, but the more time practiced the better things will be.

How can you lead a woman spiritually if you don’t know what you believe? Getting into the Word and the various spiritual disciplines in earnest helps to build that foundation. How easy is asking out a woman when you have regular spoken with people about the gospel and been discipled or have started discipling others?

There’s obviously many more like these, but I think the points are fairly clear. Even many of the RP proponents have discerned that Mission is important and not putting women first is the most successful. Doing what the Bible says we should be doing builds a lot of the skills and leadership qualities that it takes to be successful with women. If only most Churches actually preached that to men.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 3 Comments

Obesity may explain a large percentage of the problems in marriage rate dips

This photo has been making the rounds:

Basically, the caption being something like “there’s no one fat in this 1970s beach photo… fast food industry and obesity.”

Can’t say they’re wrong.

Given the posts I’ve written on:

Even in this specific photo a large portion of the men look like they actively play sports or work out because they have a decent amount of muscle. You don’t have to have bodybuilder levels of muscle to be more attractive either.

It’s quite obvious that a large part of the declining attractiveness is due to the fact that both men and women are getting out of control obese. Declining attactiveness means that less people are likely to go on dates (because they wouldn’t meet the attractiveness criteria of the opposite sex) and hence less people are likely to get married.

Clearly, there’s likely some other factors involved such as the feminization of men and masculinization of women and other things such as these, but this really does drive home the point that if you’re muscular and fit you have a huge leg up. Especially in the Church for men where caring about physical appearance is even less important about sometimes than in the secular world (although it shouldn’t be).

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 17 Comments

Divorce Part 8 (Actual Final)

This post is the actual final consolidation and simplified explanation of the Scriptures on divorce. Previous discussions include several conversations and much of the same material from On divorce and On divorce Part 2 and On divorce Part 3 and On divorce Part 4 and On divorce Part 5 and On divorce Part 6 and Divorce Part 7 Final.

What prompted this extra analysis is more information from a Mike Winger video (3 hrs). Upon analyzing some new information I hadn’t heard before, much of it seems to support this case rather than what he claims which is support for divorce for adultery, physical abuse, abandonment, and other situations.

Also related: polygyny and the Lysa divorce fiasco (which they are currently reconciling which is good).. and then now (2022) divorcing again under suspicious circumstances. This is one of the original research articles that got me started on analyzing the Scriptures on divorce and also evidence by Leslie McFall.

The “Betrothal position” has the most evidence to support it given the context from Matthew 1 (in the same book), the narrow scope use of porneia in certain circumstances John 8 (Pharisees call Jesus a “born of fornication (porneia),” as well as pointing toward the difference between putting away and divorce (putting away + writ of divorce). John Piper gives a good summary. That’s my official position on the topic after having done more research from the past post. Another paper on the The betrothal position of divorce and remarriage David W Jones and another David Janzen The Meaning of Porneia in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9 an approach: From the Study of Ancient Near Eastern Culture that I came across while looking at Winger’s material.

There’s also several other books and papers that do not support it gathering available evidence. Instone-Brewer’s book is one of the most quoted. Here’s a thesis paper that summarizes most of the pro-divorce arguments but has several critical errors in my opinion.

Additions since the last post:

  • Added more analysis in the OT sections.
  • Added a section on the debate on the word “porneia.” (Section 10)
  • Added analysis/refutation of common talking points of pro-porneia divorce in the NT passages.
  • Added section on the binding nature of vows (which no pro-divorce people have a counter argument for that I’ve seen).

Onward…


Table of contents

  1. Deuteronomy 24 — What is legal divorce according to the Scriptures?
  2. Deuteronomy 22 — What constitutes marital fraud?
  3. Jeremiah 3 and Isaiah 50 — The adulterous cases of Israel and Judah
  4. Malachi 2 — the background from the Old Testament to the New Testament
  5. Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 5 and 19 — The synonymous terms of legal divorce in the OT and NT
  6. Matthew 19:3 — the Pharisees’ multi layered trap
  7. Matthew 19:4-6 — Jesus goes back to the creation
  8. Matthew 19:7 — The Pharisees’ confusion
  9. Matthew 19:8 — Jesus’ response on hardness of heart
  10. The hotly debated term of porneia
  11. Matthew 19:9 — The heavily misinterpreted passage of Scripture
  12. Matthew 19:10-12 — the disciples actually understand the gravity of marriage
  13. Matthew 1:18-19 — the case of Joseph and Mary and John 8:39-41
  14. Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:13-18 — the unification of Matthew with Mark and Luke
  15. Romans 7 — understanding the context of Jewish divorce
  16. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 — the Lord’s command to husbands and wives
  17. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 — Paul, not the Lord, says to live with unbelieving spouses
  18. The binding nature of vows
  19. Summary of all evidence
  20. Conclusion

1. Deuteronomy 24 — What is legal divorce according to the Scriptures?

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement (sêpher kerı̂ythûth), and give it in her hand, and send (shâlach) her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement (sêpher kerı̂ythûth), and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth (shâlach) her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Legal divorce is composed of two parts in Mosiac law. This will be important later.

  1. Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
  2. Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.

2. Deuteronomy 22 — What constitutes marital fraud?

Marital fraud is found in Deuteronomy 22.

Deuteronomy 22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away (shâlach) all his days.

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

From a historical perspective, at the time of Jesus no women who were caught in marital fraud were stoned (due to the Romans not permitting the Jews to execute anyone, which is why the Pharisees had to take Jesus to Pontius Pilate to have Him executed). Women caught in marital fraud were simply put away without being legally divorced (put away + writ of divorce) as the couple was not considered legally married.

Distinguishing legal divorce from marital fraud is important because it shows how a woman could be put away (without being legally divorced).


3. Jeremiah 3 and Isaiah 50 — The adulterous cases of Israel and Judah

The Lord acquiesces to the laws He outlined in Deuteronomy 24 for legal divorce in the cases of Israel and Judah.

Jeremiah 3:6 The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. 7 And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away (shâlach), and given her a bill of divorce (sêpher kerı̂ythûth); yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. 10 And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord.

Israel was not brought back out of Assyrian captivity. By the NT, they were no longer “Jews” but “Samaritans” because they have been divorced by God and intermixed with the surrounding nations. The Samaritans were despised by the Jews because they were no longer part of the God’s chosen people.

But the Lord still wants repentance in Jeremiah 3:14 even though He legally divorced Israel. Since they are part of the ‘Gentiles’ now, they can now be redeemed by Christ. See: Samaritan woman at the well in John 3.

On the other hand, the Lord speaking to Judah does not divorce her even though He puts her away.

Isaiah 50:1 Thus saith the Lord [to Judah], Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement (sêpher ‘êm kerı̂ythûth), whom I have put away (shâlach)? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away (shâlach). 2 Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst. 3 I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering.

In the case of Judah, we know that Jesus comes from the lineage of Judah and David. The Lord allows Judah to be put away into captivity for their transgressions. Afterward, He redeems and delivers Judah out of captivity as read in Nehemiah and Ezra and upholds  His covenant with them through the rebuilding of His temple. Then He brings full redemption to them through sending His Son Jesus to die bring forth the New Covenant.


4. Malachi 2 — The background from the Old Testament to the New Testament

Malachi is the last prophet for 400 years before Jesus. Malachi points out Israelite backsliding due to assimilation of the surrounding cultures much like today.

Malachi 2:14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away (shâlach): for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. 17 Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

The passage only talks about putting away and not legal divorce under the Law of Moses. “Divorce” in surrounding cultures was simply putting away (without a writ of divorce). Husbands sent their wives out of the house and that was a divorce. Husbands probably mimicked the surrounding culture because of two reasons:

  1. Selfish gain. If a wife was legally divorced — put away with a writ of divorce — she would receive back the dowry that the bride’s father paid. However, if she was put away without a writ of divorce she would not receive back the dowry.
  2. Marginalized wives. A legal divorce — put away with a writ of divorce — would allow the divorced wife to remarry. However, if a wife was put away she would still be legally married to her husband, which allowed her unable to remarry without committing adultery.

This is why putting away is termed treacherous by the Lord. This assimilation of the surrounding culture sets the stage for Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees in the New Testament.

Janzen covers the dowry issue more depth in his analysis of why the betrothal position is correct.


5. Deuteronomy 24 and Matthew 5 and 19 — The synonymous terms of legal divorce in the OT and NT

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was written primarily in Greek.  There are synonymous terms in the Hebrew and Greek.

Deuteronomy 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement (sêpher kerı̂ythûth), and give it in her hand, and send (shâlach) her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement (sêpher kerı̂ythûth), and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth (shâlach) her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

  1. Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
  2. Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos)? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away (apoluō) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another,commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

G630 — ἀπολύω — apoluō — ap-ol-oo’-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: – (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

G647 — ἀποστάσιον — apostasion — ap-os-tas’-ee-on
Neuter of a (presumed) adjective from a derivative of G868; properly something separative, that is, (specifically) divorce: – (writing of) divorcement.

  1. GREEK Apostasion and HEBREW Sepher keriythth — Writing and giving the wife a bill of divorcement.
  2. GREEK Apoluo and HEBREW Shalach — Sending her out of the house or away.

I crossed out the two instances of “divorce” within Strong’s definition of apoluo because apoluo does not denote a legal divorce according to the Law of Moses and according to Matthew because it is a gospel to the Jews. Jesus would not have used apoluo to mean “divorce” in Matthew because He does not abolish the law but fulfills the law.


6. Matthew 19:3 — the Pharisees’ multi layered trap

Line by line analysis, given our solid background:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause?

Your spider senses should be tingling with the tricky wording of “lawful” with “putting away” (without writ of divorce) and “every cause.”

The main trap is the Pharisees are pitting Roman law versus a specific interpretation of Jewish law. In Roman law you could “divorce” your wife by “putting her away” (apoluo) much like the surrounding cultures in Malachi 2. However, Jewish law in Deuteronomy 24 you could divorce your wife by “putting her away” (apoluo or shalach) AND giving her a bill of divorcement (Apostasion or Sepher keriythth).

The secondary trap of the Pharisees, specifically the Hillelites, claimed you could legally divorce for “every cause” due to an interpretation of uncleanness in Deuteronomy 24 meaning any form of displeasure. (The article gets the conclusion wrong, but the background is important). Roman husbands could just send a wife away to divorce her whereas Jewish Law required broad or narrow cause.

The trap: If Jesus answers that you can “put away a wife without a bill of divorcement” the Pharisees can call Jesus a blasphemer as He is not following Jewish law. If Jesus says that you “need a bill of divorcement” or “a narrow range of causes” to put away then the Pharisees accuse Jesus to the Romans and say that He is subverting Roman law (like they eventually did before Pontius Pilate as they claimed Jesus was a ‘King’ which was antithetical to Roman rule).

The NET Bible translator notes echo similarly: “sn The question of the Pharisees was anything but sincere; they were asking it to test him. Jesus was now in the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas (i.e., Judea and beyond the Jordan) and it is likely that the Pharisees were hoping that he might answer the question of divorce in a way similar to John the Baptist and so suffer the same fate as John, i.e., death at the hands of Herod (cf.14:1-2). Jesus answered the question not on the basis of rabbinic custom and the debate over Deut 24:1, but rather from the account of creation and God’s original design.

Other similar Pharisee traps:

  • ‘Is it lawful to pay taxes to God or Caesar’ (Matt 22, Mark 12) which would pit Jewish law against Roman law.
  • ‘In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. What do you say?’ (John 8) with the woman caught in adultery. The Law required stoning, but Romans did not allow the Jews to execute anyone.

There is a pattern of Jewish vs Roman law interpretation.


7. Matthew 19:4-6 — Jesus goes back to the creation

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus knows that it’s a no-win question. He sidesteps the Pharisees’ trap by avoiding talking about Roman and Jewish law and causes. Instead, Jesus discusses the creation of man and what God intended. He would know because He was there in the beginning (see: John 1:1-4).

This is Jesus’ answer on divorce: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

No (man initiated) divorce.


8. Matthew 19:7 — The Pharisees’ confusion

Matthew 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos)?

The Pharisees see that Jesus has cleverly sidestepped their trap and are confused. If God did not intended for any divorce then why divorce in the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24?

The Pharisees acknowledgement that the Law of Moses declared that a divorce is composed of putting away AND bill of divorcement reveals their trap that we saw earlier. The Pharisees knew that a divorce was putting away and a bill of divorcement, but they only tested Jesus on putting away only.


9. Matthew 19:8 — Jesus’ response of hardness of heart

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away (apoluō) your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Jesus responds that this part of the law was created by Moses because human hearts are hard. Jesus agrees with God: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Jesus is saying that any who thinks divorce is an option for them has hardness of heart.


10. Matthew 19:9 — The heavily misinterpreted passage of Scripture

Jesus answers the original question that the Pharisees posed: “what lawful instances can a man put away?” You can see the mirror of the verses which confirms this:

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife for every cause?

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

Jesus is answering the Pharisees original question. Next, read the verse without the “exception clause” to understand why it makes sense.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

Simplified:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, …, and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

In plain English:

If you put away your wife and marry another you commit adultery and whoever marries her commits adultery.

This is what is said in Mark 10 and Luke 16, and the meaning is obvious. If you put away your wife without legally divorcing her — give her a writ of divorcement before sending her away — you’re still married to her. If you’re still married to her, both you and her commit adultery if you marry another.

Similarly, if we interpret “putting away” to also mean divorce, then the passage reads the same: “If you divorce your wife and marry another you commit adultery and whoever marries her commits adultery.”

Either way you interpret putting away here, it’s the same thing especially in the context of Jesus mentioning that Moses inserted divorce into the Law for hardness of heart and that God’s will is “what God has put together let no man separate.”

Now to add in back the exception:

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

What is the only case you can “put away” a “wife” without legal divorce? In the Law of Moses that would be Deuteronomy 22 where the marriage was invalid because of fraud. Since the marriage was invalid because of fraud, you can put her away without giving her a writ of divorce.

Porneia, in this case, refers specifically to invalid marriages because of marital fraud. I’ll cover why in the next section.

Therefore, Jesus makes two distinct statements in this entire passage:

On marriage and divorce:

Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

On putting away in regard to fraudulent marriages (referencing Deut 22):

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia) [illicit/fraudulent sexual deception which forms an invalid marriage], and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

In conclusion, Jesus says there is no divorce. You can only put away if there is marriage fraud.

For example, in the case of fraud, a wife that lies about her past sexual history can be put away because it’s a fraudulent marriage. Interestingly, though we often negatively critique him, Mark Driscoll experienced this. You can see the devastation, which is why God makes an exception for this.


11. The hotly debated term of porneia

The interpretation of porneia is the probably the most contested term in the passage because the meaning around it can change the whole meaning of the passage. This section is going to be long because there are several considerations.

Most who believe that you can divorce for adultery point out that “porneia” is a supposed to be a catch all term including fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality, and other manners of sexual impropriety. According to them, this means the Matthew 5 exception clauses allow for divorce for any of these instances.

Let’s look at this logically.

Matthew 5:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a man. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery (moichao), sexual immorality (porneia), theft, false testimony, and slander.

In Matthew 15, we have a passage that distinguishes that porneia is not necessarily synonymous with adultery. Galatians 5 also similarly separates them in comparison of fruit of the flesh versus fruit of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality (porneia) among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

In this passage, porneia refers to “incest.” Thus, this also means that porneia can have a narrower scope than as just a catch all term. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 as well as Colossians 3 and 1 Thess 4 appear to refer to fornication as “pre-marital sex.”

Another point is that that no translation of porneia (aside from the supposedly contested usage in Matthew 5 and 19) in the NT refers to it to include adultery or translated exclusively adultery. When adultery is referred to the term moichaeo is used.

John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they (Pharisees) to him (Jesus), We be not born of fornication (porneia); we have one Father, even God.

The vast majority if not all commentaries assert that this is a Pharisaical jab at the fact that it was known that Mary was pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. Hence, “born of fornication” in this case specifically refers to Mary’s supposed pre-marital sex during the betrothal period. Therefore, we can establish that fornication can actually even refer to the narrow scope of “pre-marital sex” in the betrothal period.

Jeremiah 3:2 “Look up to the barren heights and see. Is there any place where you have not been ravished? By the roadside you sat waiting for lovers, sat like a nomad in the desert. You have defiled the land with your prostitution/adulteries (zanah – porneia) and wickedness. 3 Therefore the showers have been withheld, and no spring rains have fallen. Yet you have the brazen look of a prostitute; you refuse to blush with shame. 4 Have you not just called to me: ‘My Father, my friend from my youth, 5 will you always be angry? Will your wrath continue forever?’ This is how you talk, but you do all the evil you can.”

6 During the reign of King Josiah, the Lord said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery (zanah – porneia) there.

7 I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. 8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries (zanah – moicheao). Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery (zanah – porneia). 9 Because Israel’s immorality (zanah – porneia) mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery (naaph – moicheao) with stone and wood. 10 In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense,” declares the Lord.

H2181 – zânâh – zaw-naw’
A primitive root (highly fed and therefore wanton); to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple forniciation, rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah): – (cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish. Total KJV occurrences: 93

H5003 nâ’aph naw-af’
A primitive root; to commit adultery; figuratively to apostatize: – adulterer (-ess), commit (-ing) adultery, woman that breaketh wedlock. Total KJV occurrences:

Mike Winger in his video (linked at the top & here) notes that porneia is translated as adultery in the Greek Septuagint in several difference cases. For instance, Jeremiah 3:2,6, Eze 16:23, Hos 2:3,5, Amos 7:17. I’m not sure if this was an exhaustive list on his part, but this is the Hebrew terms for this passage compared to the Greek terms above.

The first thing to note is the Septuagint is generally imprecise with the terms as well with zanah being translated as both porneia and moicheao though naaph is only translated as adultery.This is similar to some instances in English translations of the Bible being imprecise with several terms like Matthew 5 ‘lust after a woman is committing adultery in your heart’ versus translating the same word as ‘covet’ in Romans 7. That’s how you get almost ascetic-like things where ‘lusting after any woman is a sin’ instead of understanding it to be Jesus’ extension of ‘don’t covet your neighbor’s wife’ raised to the level of don’t even think about coveting her in your thoughts otherwise your heart is going the wrong way. 

Generally the term for actual adultery is Naaph which is also the same word used in the 10 commandments in Exodus 20, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 5. zanah and it’s variants (H2181 through H2184) generally refer to prostitution — to idolatry, literal prostitution e.g. Lev 19:29 whoring out your daughter, or in the case of Rahab and Tamar Gen 38, Josh 2,6.

Given the imprecise nature of the Septuagint translation and the general Hebrew terms, it seems to me that this doesn’t help us determine much of anything. At least the NT is more consistent with the translations and general meanings.

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a (taken) woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who puts away his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

In Matthew 5, Jesus is telling us that God’s standards are actually above the standards of the law. For example, instead of what the Law says which is “don’t commit adultery” (10 commandments) the standards of God are higher than that which means don’t even covet your neighbor in your mind. Don’t make any vows but let your yes be yes and no be no. Don’t try to get revenge but rather be kind to change others hearts.

Winger and other commenters note that it’s likely the Pharisees would have heard Jesus preaching on this and asked him about it later in Matthew 19. However, Jesus being a Jew who knew the Law more thoroughly than any other would have known about the Hillel (any cause) versus the Shammaite (only adultery/sexual impropriety) divorce debate.

This presents many big holes in their logic.

  • Jesus agrees with Pharisees? – If Jesus permits divorce for adultery then he would agree with the Shammaite Pharisees in saying that you could divorce for adultery like in Deut 24. The pattern throughout the gospels is Jesus does not agree with the Pharisees.
  • No reason to ask Jesus again as He already took a side — If Jesus is agreeing with the Shammaite Pharisees in Matthew 5 (before they asked Him in Matthew 19), then there would have been no reason to ask Him again in in Matthew 19!
  • Jesus calls His own heart hard and contradicts God’s plan? — Jesus would be calling His own heart hard to permit divorce like Moses did as He states earlier in the passage, and it would be contradictory to “what God has put together let no man separate.”
  • Jesus agrees with the Law and doesn’t raise the standard? — Jesus’ standards like in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) are always raising the bar from the Law to a higher standard. For instance, in Matt 5 Jesus also says “27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully/covetously (epithumeo) has already committed adultery with her in his heart. … 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” If Jesus is permitting divorce for adultery not only is he agreeing with the Shammaite Pharisees but He is also agreeing with divorce Law in Deut 24.
  • Disciple reaction would not be extreme if he was agreeing with a sect of the Pharisees and the Law – Disciples reaction saying it’s “better not to marry.” That would not be the case if he was agreeing with a sect of the Pharisees and with the Law in Deut 24, but it would be the case if He was raising the bar very high like in the rest of His teaching. – This is covered in the next section as well.

There is additional evidence why porneia does not refer to adultery here.

  • If Jesus was talking specifically about a legitimate divorce for adultery specifically, according to the Law of Moses, He would have said

He would have said in reference to Deut 24:“Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) with a writ of divorce (apostasion) his wife, “except it be for adultery (moichiao),

Instead, He says in reference to Deut 22:“Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, “except it be for fornication (porneia),

The Greek wording is important because it tells us what passages Jesus is referencing in Mosaic Law. The answer is Deuteronomy 22 and illegitimate marriages as opposed to Deuteronomy 24 and rules on divorce.

  • This also explains exactly happening in Malachi 2 and Roman times. Husbands were defaulting to the culture and putting away their wives without a writ of divorce contrary to the Law of Moses. The wives could not marry again because they were still married to their original husbands. If they did they were committing adultery. Possibly stealing dowrys as well.
  • Also, Jesus continues to avoid the Pharisees’ trap. Remember, “putting away” in Roman culture is synonymous for divorce. Jesus references the only part of the Law where “putting away” is valid, which would not conflict with Roman divorce laws.
  • Sacraments/covenants like marriage cannot be formed if there is deception by any party. They require that the full Truth is disclosed. This is similar to contract law and why there are annulments for invalid marriages.

Overall, it appears a preponderance of logical evidence backs the “exception clause” referring directly to the Deuteronomy 22 and/or betrothal period sex. The husband could put the wife away (without a writ of divorce) because the marriage was a sham. Thus,

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be for fornication (porneia) (illicit/fraudulent sexual deception which forms an invalid marriage), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

Let’s look at some more passages.


12. Matthew 19:10-12 — the disciples actually understand the gravity of marriage

Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The disciples, despite how they are often mocked at not understanding things, readily understand that Jesus is saying that there is no divorce. The only exception is that you can put away a wife if she fraudulently married by deception. Obviously, lots of these were covered in the previous section.

  • If Jesus was saying you could divorce for adultery (like in Deut 24) and agreeing with the Shammaite Pharisees, the disciples would not have responded like this. It was already acknowledged that you could do this, which would not be surprising to the disciples.
  • If Jesus was saying you could divorce for adultery (like in Deut 24), He would have been calling His own heart hard since He had earlier stated “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”
  • When Jesus fulfills the Law, it is always to a much higher standard than the former Law. For example, “Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22) is transformed to “a new command I give to you: that you love one another, just as I have loved you, that you love one another” (John 13, John 15). Now, Jesus is the standard.
  • In the case of divorce, Jesus instead goes back to Creation which was Perfect: “What God has put together let no man separate.”

The standards for Christians in the New Testament always supersede that of the Old Testament.

No divorce period except for fraudulent marriages is a hard word. A really hard word.

The pro-divorce proponents contest this point saying that the Jewish people at the time say you had to divorce for adultery and that Jesus was claiming that you only may divorce for adultery. This doesn’t make any logical sense either as it would contradict Jesus’ sermon in Matthew 5 raising the bar for Christian standards, and God’s patience with backsliding Israel and Judah and the ultimate plan to reconcile them to Himself.

Additionally, as has been stated before, this would make Jesus agree with the Shammaite school of thinking where you can divorce for sexual immorality (Deut 24) which would make Jesus agree with them. Whereas in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) and other places Jesus raises the standards for Christians. Why would the disciples say it’s better not to marry if He was agreeing with one of the Jewish sects on divorce and remarriage?


13. Matthew 1:18-19 — the case of Joseph and Mary and John 8:39-41

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away (apoluō autos) privily.

Joseph engagement and marriage with Mary would have been fraudulent because he was supposed to be marrying a virgin. To him Mary was not a virgin because she was with child. It took an angel of God to convince him otherwise.

John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they (Pharisees) to him (Jesus), We be not born of fornication (porneia); we have one Father, even God.

As we covered earlier, the Pharisees even accused Jesus of being “born of fornication.”

This is probably the reason why Matthew includes the “except for fornication” clause in Matthew 5 and 19. He was defending Jesus’ birth. The Pharisees and others accused Jesus of being illegitimate in the Scriptures (Mark 6, John 8).

The pro-divorce proponents have no answer for this as they can only say “porneia” is supposedly more broad than this while the main gospel uses of porneia actually support that it’s referring to the betrothal.


14. Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:13-18 — the unification of Matthew with Mark and Luke

 In Mark 10:

Mark 10:2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (apoluō) his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement (apostasion), and to put her away (apoluō autos). 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery (moichaō) against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away (apoluō) her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (moichaō).

And also in Luke 16:

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

18 Whosoever putteth away (apoluō) his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery (moichaō): and whosoever marrieth her that is put away (apoluō) from her husband committeth adultery (moichaō).

First, there is no “exception clause” in both Mark and Luke. This would conflict with the passages in Matthew passages if it referred to adultery. As we now know, Mark and Luke do not conflict with Matthew because the “exception clause” refers to fraudulent marriages and not divorce for adultery.

Second, the background behind these passages is that Mark and Luke were mainly written to the Gentiles while Matthew was written to the Hebrews. The reason for this is that “putting away” was “divorce” for the Gentiles. The instruction is that they should not do that at all. As they were not under the Law of Moses, this goes back to Jesus statement of original intention: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” There is no divorce for Gentile believers.

Third, the Mark passage is particular instructive. The disciples asked him in the house later about Jesus’ true thoughts in private: no divorce (which goes along with “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”). If Jesus had said this out in public, the Pharisees could have had him stoned as divorce was lawful for Romans.

The pro-divorce proponents assert that this “no divorce” is the rule, but there are exceptions to the rule such as Matthew 5 and 19. They point out that several times Jesus seems to contradict Himself in Scriptures sometimes. Thus, we should mainly be considering the Spirit of the Law rather than the Letter of the Law.

Matthew 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool (moros)!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You (Pharisees) blind men (moros)! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

I agree that we should be interpreting by the Spirit of the Law. The Spirit of the Law in the case of marriage is: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Why are we making excuses and exceptions to lower than standard when Jesus pretty clearly laid out the standard?

One could argue that it would be compassionate to allow the “innocent party” in hard marriage situations (e.g. adultery) to divorce and remarry. God is quite compassionate in the Bible to innocent parties (e.g. widows and orphans), but it’s also true that this line of thinking may suffer from the slippery slope. The liberals also say that it’s being compassionate to affirm the positions of LGBT+ and that you can call yourself whatever pronouns you want. However, this position while it could possibly be true seems to be at odds with most of the other textual and contextual arguments.


15. Romans 7 — understanding the context of Jewish divorce

Romans 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

In Romans 7, Paul is speaking that the covenant of marriage is unbound by death only.

Winger argues this by saying that this is an analogy, and the meaning of the analogy (continued on) is actually that we died to the law so that Christ lives through us. Hence, this is not necessarily accurate to what is prescribed for Christians on how to live since analogies aren’t meant to hyper-acurate to the underlying statement’s point.

While I agree with that analysis, he errs in applying his analysis to God’s plan for Christians. If we take the full analogy into context which is ‘being dead to the law and sin and alive in Christ to serve the Spirit’ then rather than supporting the divorce point it would support the no divorce point: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

This is the way it was from the beginning. As Christians with new life in the Spirit we are to return to marriage as it was before the fall (perfect) through being new Creations in Christ. This would mean we are not to revert to the exception Moses put into the Law in Deut 24 which Jesus calls hardness of heart. That would be obeying the Law rather than dying to the Law to live in the Spirit.


16. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 — the Lord’s command to husbands and wives

The Lord speaks through Paul:

1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart (chōrizō) from her husband: 11 But and if she depart (chōrizō), let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away (aphiēmi) his wife.

G5563 — χωρίζω — chōrizō — kho-rid’-zo
From G5561; to place room between, that is, part; reflexively to go away: – depart, put asunder, separate.

G863 — ἀφίημι — aphiēmi — af-ee’-ay-mee
From G575 and ἵημι hiēmi (to send; an intensive form of εἶμι eimi (to go)); to send forth, in various applications: – cry, forgive, forsake, lay aside, leave, let (alone, be, go, have), omit, put (send) away, remit, suffer, yield up.

G630 — ἀπολύω — apoluō — ap-ol-oo’-o
From G575 and G3089; to free fully, that is, (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon, or (specifically) divorce: – (let) depart, dismiss, divorce, forgive, let go, loose, put (send) away, release, set at liberty.

The Lord speaks through Paul that any type of separation (legal divorce or not) that those in the marriage are to stay single or reconcile. In other words, do not divorce. If you separate, you must stay single or reconcile. There is no remarriage.

This agrees with Jesus’ original statements on divorce: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Jesus and the Father are one, and they are in agreement.


17. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 — Paul, not the Lord, says to live with unbelieving spouses

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put away (aphiēmi autos). 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him (aphiēmi autos). 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart (chōrizō), let him depart (chōrizō). A brother or a sister is not under bondage (douloo) in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

This passage is also used as a so-called exception clause for remarriage. “If I’m not under bondage anymore because my unbelieving wife or husband left me then I can remarry.” This interpretation is incorrect.

If you examine the wording closely, the passage only says that if they depart then you’re not under the bondage (douloo) anymore. Greek douloo is from doulos which means servant/slave and is the verb form of slave which means enslavement. This is bondage is our duty to God for the marital roles and responsibilities.

Paul references this authority-slave/servant relationship earlier in the passage on the spouses owing sex to each other.

1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

This verse must also be taken in context with the other verses in the Bible and passage. As Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 show, the Christian must stay single or reconcile and that the marriage covenant is only broken by death.

1 Corinthians 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart (chōrizō) from her husband: 11 But and if she depart (chōrizō), let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away (aphiēmi) his wife.

Notice the same wording of an unbeliever departing (chorizo) and a wife departing (chorizo). They are still under the marriage covenant and must stay single or reconcile.

Likewise, the end of the 1 Corinthians affirms this too:

1 Corinthians 7:39 A wife is bound (deo) as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.

G1210 — deō — deh’-o — A primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or figuratively): – bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind. See also G1163, G1189.

This is affirmed again at the end of 1 Corinthians 7. Notice the difference in the Greek word deo versus douloo used in the other verse. Deo means to bind. This is the same language that is used for the marital covenant as oneness/binding and is only broken by death.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave (dâbaq) unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh

H1692 — dâbaq — daw-bak’ — A primitive root; properly to impinge, that is, cling or adhere; figuratively to catch by pursuit: – abide, fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard, after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take.

The covenant bond is one of permanent clinging together.

There is no divorce or remarriage for Christians with unbelieving spouses either.

Winger contests this by asserting that “deo” for the bond in marriage is a less extreme form of “douloo” which is typically translated to servant/slave in the Scriptures. This is a good point, but he errs in analysis by stating that since an unbelieving spouse leaving means that being in a marriage with them would be “enslavement” rather than the bond “deo” of marriage. In other words, it’s a worse situation not of “deo” but of “douloo.”

On the surface this seems true, but there are two strong points that counteract this.

  • 1 Peter 3 discusses wives of unbelieving husbands and shows that the proper role is to respect and submit and control their behavior so as to set a good example and possibly win their husbands to Christ (agreeing with 1 Cor 7 on unbelieving spouses that consent to live with the believer). Along with Romans discussing the context of our salvation (e.g. Romans 5:8 God shows his love for us in this: while we were yet sinners Christ died for us) the actual onus is on the Christian to live in a Christ-like manner despite any circumstances. This would more align with the stay single and reconcile point as it’s not anymore “enslavement” than to be with an unbeliever as with a believer as your conduct should still be godly.
  • “Douloo” is often used by Paul to refer to Himself at the beginning of his epistle letters (Slave to Christ) and also in the various epistles to refer to us as Christians as “slaves to righteousness.” Rather than being a bad thing, this is actually a good thing.

This is why that the “enslavement” likely refers to the roles and responsibilities of the marriage. After all, it would be tough to hold to the roles and responsibilities of marriage if the unbeliever leaves. Additionally, if it referred to breaking the marriage bond it would contradict the theme and Spirit of all of the rest of the NT Scriptures.


18. The binding nature of vows

This is one of the points that I’ve never seen the pro-divorce for adultery (or “porneia”) address because they have no good argument against it.

Probably all Christian marriages (and even secular marriages ) took vows when they married, which God takes very seriously.

The only time in the entire Bible where vows can be nullfied is in Numbers 30 where a husband can nullify them if he hears his wife made them when he wasn’t around. Even then if he doesn’t then after a certain time passes they become binding.

Yeah, the secular non-Christians don’t care they broke their wedding vows and divorced, but Christians are held to a higher standard. Vows are not null and void because someone else did something wrong.


19. Summary of all available evidence against divorce and remarriage

  1. Jesus notes the standard is “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
  2. Divorce from the Law of Moses is for those hard of heart.
  3. Putting away is not divorce according to the Law of Moses, which both Jesus and the Pharisees knew.
  4. Jesus was answering the original question the Pharisees were asking about “putting away.”
  5. Textual analysis points to “except for porneia” pointing to Deuteronomy 22 instead of Deuteronomy 24, especially in context of Matthew 1 Joseph and Mary and the trap the Pharisees were trying to trick Him.
  6. Moichao = act of adultery specifically. Jesus doesn’t use that word in the “exception”
  7. Disciples response (“it is better not to marry”) indicates that it does not refer to Deuteronomy 24 where you can already divorce for adultery.
  8. Why would Jesus repeat and agree to with the Pharisees that you can divorce for adultery. Hint: He wouldn’t.
  9. Precedent of Joseph and Mary where “putting away” is the righteous option for marital fraud (not killing her according to Deut 22).
  10. Agreement of Mark and Luke with no exceptions. If Jesus made an exception Matthew, then Mark and Luke would not agree with Matthew and the Bible would contradict itself. It is not an ‘addition’ to Jesus’ statements in Mark and Luke.
  11. In Mark, the disciples ask Jesus again privately, and He clarifies any putting away = adultery. If he had done this publicly, the Pharisees could have had him stoned as Roman Law said you could put away to divorce which would make Jesus deny Roman Law.
  12. Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7 showing that death breaks marital covenants with no other exceptions.
  13. 1 Corinthians 7, the Lord says that a wife and husband should not separate, but if they do, they should stay single or reconcile. This agrees with “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” and does not agree with an ‘exception’ for divorce.
  14. The whole book of Hosea is about God commanding Hosea to marry a prostitute and how that symbolizes God and His people who are adulterous. God still wants them to come back to Him. We are to emulate God.
  15. The seriousness of vows you took in the sight of God and according to God. Vows are not null and void because someone else did something wrong.
  16. In the same way with vows, all the Biblical marital roles and responsibilities are unconditional (Eph 5, Col 3, Titus 3, 1 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 7). You don’t get a “get out of marriage free” card or “I can act mean to my wife if she treats me poorly” card if the other person is sinning. The Bible still commands husbands to love their wives and treat them with honor and calls wives to submit and respect their husbands…. no matter how bad the other spouse acts.
  17. Our ministry as Christians is the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5) which also includes marriages that have had crazy sins happen in them.
  18. This other paper I found analyzes the Ancient Near East (ANE) customs (which is the context of when Matthew was written) and comes to the conclusion porneia referse to the betrothal position and marriage with a man other than the husband. I covered some of the evidence int his post, but there’s more if you want to read more.

Other evidence:

  • A husband who runs off with another woman is still married to his former wife, and he will be held accountable for judgment to God for that.
  • The early Church fathers held the view of no divorce and remarriage. It’s funny that Christians now think they know more about it from their own Biblical interpretation than those who were passed down the Standard directly from Jesus Himself.

Piper has some additional points based on hypothetical scenarios that support the no divorce position.

Overall, I can’t think that much evidence in combination with looking at both the Old and New Testament that indicates one can divorce for adultery. The only circumstantial evidence that those who support divorce for adultery keep trying to stand on is that “porneia” can refer to adultery in some instances according to Strong’s. Unfortunately, it is never used to refer to adultery in the NT, especially when there is a more suitable word which is moichao.

There are also no Christian traditions that support divorce for adultery. The only exception is in the past century or so with the rise of feminism.


20. Conclusions

Jesus talks about marriage, divorce, and putting away. Understanding which passages Jesus refers to is critical to unifying all of Scripture on the topic of divorce.

  1. Putting away is NOT divorce in the context of Mosaic Law and in the gospel of Matthew. It is a two part process of putting away and a bill of divorcement. – Deut 22, 24; Mal 2; Jer 3; Isa 50; Matt 5, 19
  2. Putting away is synonymous with divorce for the Gentiles. — Mark 10; Luke 16; 1 Corinthians 7
  3. God and Jesus’ plan for marriage is that “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” – Gen 2, Matt 19; Mark 10
  4. There is no get-out-of-marriage adultery clause. Who you are married to you should stay married to regardless of any sins they commit. This is a hard word as even the disciples said it was better not to marry. Separation seems to be an option if you can’t live with them. Reconciliation is ideal. – Matt; 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, 1 Cor 7
  5. Under the Law of Moses and according to Jesus, a marriage is illegitimate if your wife committed sexual fraud prior to marriage. Example: Claiming she was a virgin when she was not (Deut 22). Hence, you can put her away without divorcing her since it was a sham. – Deut 22, Matthew 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16,
  6. If a spouse leaves stay single or be reconciled. – 1 Cor 7, Romans 7, Mark 10, Luke 16
  7. If an unbelieving spouse leaves you are not under bondage of marital roles and responsibilities. You are still under the marriage covenant, and you cannot remarry. – 1 Cor 7
  8. Those already remarried in their second and third marriages are NOT to divorce and reconcile with their first spouse if they come to Christ (See: Note 1 for more details). The heretical interpretation is perpetual adultery with the new spouse. In this line of thought, divorce and reconcile and remarry with the first spouse. This view goes against what Deuteronomy 24 says in that if a first husband divorces a wife and another marries her even if she is divorced or her husband dies then she is not to remarry him again otherwise is it an abomination. – Deut 24, Matthew 19

Note 1: Divorce, remarriage, and perpetual adultery:

1. There is perpetual adultery if the participants are made completely aware of the roles and responsibilities and the everlasting nature of marriage. In other words, “sacramental marriage” affirmed by the Church. If you know you are held accountable to a greater standard, just as Christians are held to a greater standard than non-Christians.

2. However, those who were not made aware sinned in their ignorance. Those that don’t undergo the rites of the Church in the marriage ceremonies in both (?) Catholic and Orthodox tradition means that the marriage formed is potentially invalid. Hence, since the marriage wasn’t valid they are free to marry another. A marriage can be affirmed sacramental in which case divorce and remarriage is a sin.

3. This would also go along with the position that those in their 2nd or 3rd marriages and then come to Christ would not have to divorce and go back to their first spouse. They can get their current marriage affirmed by the Church with all of the details of the Covenant.


Final Conclusion, according to Scriptures, for Christians

  1. No divorce period. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
  2. Stay single or reconcile. No remarriage. This includes marriage to unbelievers who leave.
  3. Your recourse is separation if you absolutely can’t live with them or actual scenarios where physical harm can be present (though not ideal).
  4. Fraudulent marriages are not marriages. Covenants require truth from all parties to be established.
  5. If you have a “Christian marriage” (or sacramental marriage) — both of you know that marriage is forever on earth and the accompanying roles and responsibilities — then any divorce and remarriage is perpetual adultery.
  6. 2nd or 3rd marriages that come to Christ can be affirmed as Christian marriages. They would not have to go back to their first spouse and are not in perpetual adultery. Prior marriages are effectively “annulled” as you did not understand Christian marriage.

This is why I believe (as a Protestant) that the Catholic method of sacramental marriage is probably the best method to deal with marriage and divorce in a broken world. Orthodox I can see the reasoning on, but it is not as strictly faithful. Protestant views on marriage are trash, and it is no surprise that they have the highest divorce rates of any denomination of Christianity and divorce rates almost as high as secular culture.

Since this is my own opinion, I don’t force it on others. Don’t bother claiming me as some authoritative figure.

Read the Scriptures and study them in depth for yourself. If you come to a different position then hopefully you do it in good conscience before God. All I would say is don’t be like the feminists and other heretical people who go into reading the Scriptures to twist and distort them because you want a particular outcome.

This is the only position I have found to be in good conscience before God that goes with the theme of the God and Jesus’ example for us in the NT.

Regarding replies again: Probably won’t reply to much. I’ll only respond to actual comments discussing quality of evidence supporting a point including Bible verses and analysis of why you think it’s that way. If you’re just claiming something I’m not going to bother.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 16 Comments

Is it possible for a woman to be too godly?

This question came up on the discord, and it’s worth exploring.

There’s another quality that I’m ambivalent about. Is it possible for a woman to be too godly (when dating)?

The true answer is no, but most people misinterpret this.

A true godly woman (with great character, humility, etc.) will respect and submit. Albeit, sometimes needs some prompting and sometimes slips up but will get back on track.

However, what tends to occur in reality is that women can easily let FALSE HUMILITY and PRIDE get in the way of actual HUMILITY. They think they are better than the man/husband because they are reading the Bible more, praying more, going to Church more, or more of whatever “spiritual” things. However, doing more spiritual things does not make you more godly — it’s obedience to God that makes someone godly. Thus, they fall into a place of disrespect, contentiousness, and rebellion, but think they are actually doing the right thing. Very insidious.

In other words, a woman cannot be too godly for a man (as a true godly woman will respect and submit even to an unbeliever… e.g. 1 Peter 3), but a woman who believes they are more godly than the man usually falls into the trap of pride and false humility. She would actually disobey the Bible’s teachings such as 1 Peter 3 and usually starts tearing down her own relationship and marriage thinking she is better than him.

Not only women fall into this trap, but many Christians men can fall into this trap as well. I’ve heard things like “she’s too godly for me” or “she’s too godly for him.” Godliness is not a comparison game. It’s obedience to the Lord, and one can never be too obedient to God despite whatever circumstance they are in.

However, it’s also true that a woman who is actually trying to obey God and spending a lot of time in spiritual disciplines would also probably more easily submit to and respect a man who has put a lot of time into obeying God and his own walk with Christ including the spiritual disciplines as well.

This is also true in various other circumstances. For instance, in False humility is insidious and shallowness is false humility I explored some of the other trappings of this.

Another one of the big areas of false humility with wives who actually want to obey their husbands is they read so many “Christian books” about how they’re supposed to do certain things to submit to their husband when in reality they should be asking their husband about how they want to submit. Then when they do these various “things” trying to make their husband happy and he is not she gets all mad that she is trying and not succeeding. This anger is not a righteous one because she is actually following the books, blogs, podcasts, and whatever advice instead of following her husband’s lead. In other words, she is getting angry over her submitting to the books, blogs, podcasts, and other advice instead of her own husband.

In this way, a wife gets off track from actual submission to her husband and into obeying everyone else but her husband. However, since these “everyone else” sources is supposedly godly, she is duped into believing she is doing the right thing. Hence, the false humility because she thinks she is doing the right thing but she is not.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments

The Lie of Servant Leadership Part 2

Building on the previous post The Lie of Servant Leadership, this one comes to us from a series of IFStudies articles. Aaron Renn actually leads off the first one with similar stuff from the previou spost.

Renn makes the case in that often most Christian and conservatives are hyperfocused on masculinity not own it’s own but always on what it can do for women and children. He echoes this in the bulleted article:

Healthy masculinity is when men flourish first for themselves, then for their families, posterity, and communities. A man embodying healthy masculinity knows who he is. He is physically healthy and strong. He is pursuing and developing his skills and capabilities to make him more competent and able to take action. He has a sense of agency, drive, and desire to make his mark on the world, not just have the world make its mark on him. He is someone who exists in a world where it is realistically possible for him to develop his potential, fulfill his own ambitions, and leave a posterity and a legacy for the future.

Hence, in his article on IFStudies he notes that healthy masculinity is first for themselves, although in Christian terms it’s first to please God with how He designed us to be then to build a legacy. Women and children can be part of that, but mission is always paramount (and for Christians obviously Christ’s mission).

Only then is a man actually able to lead by example as the Bible states rather than walking backwards into some form of slavery where a man’s duty is defined by what he does for his wife and children or how he makes his wife and children feel.

Some of the rest in the series usually start out fine, but then devolve into everything about responsibility.

The first lesson is that no man should feel ashamed of being male, because God created him that way. I also believe that men function best in environments marked by order, so I will teach my sons that men who want to lead families need to be led by God’s word.

They also need to know that women are neither enemies to be engaged with on the battlefields of the culture wars, nor objects to be demeaned through music and media. They should see their female counterparts for who they are—created beings made in the image of God who are equal in worth but distinct in form and nature. Men and women are meant to complement, not compete, with one another. Rejecting these differences is how we came to see chivalry as patronizing and pornography as empowering. Part of my job is to ensure my sons don’t fall prey to that type of thinking. The familiar motto of “provide and protect” feels countercultural in an era of “degrade and neglect.”

Good start, but then starts to get a bit hazy into the typical “equal but different” spiel in the second paragraph.

American boys and men also need to know that, despite what some people think, “responsibility” is not a dirty word. In fact, the ability to care for yourself and be accountable for others is what separates boys from men. The ultimate act of manhood is being willing to commit to one woman and the children you create for a lifetime.

Men and boys today need to see the vocations of husband and father as central to their identity. This is how I was raised. My father and his peers would frequently remind the boys in our church that laziness and unwillingness to provide for your household were traits of an ungodly man.

And then the definition of a manhood and masculinity is always what you can do for women and children.

Incidentally, I have found that asking “what does it mean to be a gentleman?” leads to a conversation much more fruitful than “what does it mean to be masculine?” or “what is healthy masculinity?” For better or worse, many boys equate masculinity with physical strength and endurance, weight training and football. As a matter of language, they can’t really get their heads around a masculine man engaging in visual arts or poetry or ballet: they start laughing, imagining an NFL offensive tackle wearing a tutu. But they can readily accept the idea of a gentleman who excels in visual arts or poetry or ballet.

However the term is defined, there are not many gentlemen to be found among young male celebrities today. Bruno Mars earned six Grammys for a song in which he tells a young woman “You and your a** invited” and offers her money if she will just “turn around and drop it for a player” because “That’s What I Like” (the title of the song). Drake conquered the pop charts last September with his album “Certified Lover Boy,” taking nine of the top 10 spots on the Billboard Top 100, a feat never equaled by any artist in history, not even the Beatles. Drake likes to boast “I’m undoubtedly the hottest and that’s just me bein’ modest.”

Already starts off pretty faulty by only using society comparisons.

I have visited more than 460 schools over the past 21 years, and I have found that most boys are hungry to have a conversation about what it means to be a good man. I have led those discussions with boys, where I suggest the following definitions as a starting point for conversation:

  • A gentleman governs his passions rather than being governed by them. As Supreme Allied Commander during the Second World War, Dwight D. Eisenhower would quote Proverbs 16:32: “Greater is he who can rule his own spirit than he who takes a city,” a verse his mother had taught him in childhood.
  • A gentleman never strikes a woman, not even in self-defense.
  • A gentleman never touches a woman without her consent.
  • A gentleman does not look at pornography, because pornography is degrading, not only to the woman who is objectified, but also to the man who uses it. I have heard from boys at high schools across the U.S. that their teacher in health class encourages them to masturbate, and porn is a useful adjunct to masturbation. The teacher explains that masturbation is safe sex, without the need to worry about obtaining a partner’s consent. Such advice reflects an impoverished view of what boys are and what they can become.
  • A gentleman does not bully the weak; instead, a gentleman defends the weak against the bully.

Each of these comments inspires a lively response from American teen boys–especially the comment about pornography. These are conversations boys need to have with an adult man who has the courage to use the word “gentleman,” in defiance of the current mainstream disapproval of the term as reinforcing the heteronormative patriarchy.

Everything is again reduced to how men can serve women or avoid thinking about women badly.

All living things live in such a way as to ensure the survival and prosperity of their species. This holds for plants, animals, and men. In our time, mankind not only threatens the survival of many other species but now even its own. All nations are either heading towards or already are significantly below replacement fertility rates. And in the OECD, member countries that have attempted to reverse this decline have no success to report. This a masculinity/femininity problem because it is a “complementarity of the sexes” problem.

No matter which way you look at it (theologically, philosophically, biologically, evolutionary, or in social science), the division of mankind into male and female is present for producing children. Both sexes can do an infinite number of other things, but they rarely need to be male or female to do them, and most of these things they can do alone. But they need their difference and their union to produce a baby. We are male and female primarily (even solely) to have and to raise children. [……]

Thus, the core measure of masculinity—the male’s complementary relationship to the female and the child—is whether a man can sustain an intact marriage. If he does, both the mother and the child thrive most in society, no matter which way the data is sliced. If he is not capable of sustaining marriage with the mother of his child, he is ‘toxic’ to her and to his child.

This one just jumps straight into defining masculinity in terms of how it impacts women and children.

This always seems to be the common theme with the combination of any of these descriptors in varying degrees.

  • Boomer
  • Conservative
  • Churchian

Manhood is never defined in relation to Christ and His mission and how marriage may be a part of it, but how manhood and masculinity is central to wives and children.

While it’s clear that manhood and masculinity are indeed central to impacting women and children, to focus on that actually creates an inversion of roles “servant leadership” that ends up being destructive to relationships and marriages instead of enhancing them.

Yet it is the same old thing consistently preached at Promise Keepers, conferences, man-up services, and the like.

When will they learn? Maybe never. But the death of their Churchian Churches shows us why it’s rotten.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 25 Comments

“Beautiful, High Character Women”

Continuing in the vein of more “RP” related youtube media as I covered in the last one with Alexander Grace, the Roommates seems to be another one that could fit the bill at least part way.

Interesting video Title which is why I put it in quotes…. Ran across this vid and thought it was worth sharing.

Essentially, it was a fairly good back and forth about men and women in the Church from a realistic point of view. Also goes into a ton of the topics I’ve covered here before.

Attractiveness is not mutually exclusive with spirituality

  • Host: Hard to meet quality men and women. Maybe youth groups or college groups
  • Both: States that beauty and character are not mutually exclusive. Should want both
  • Host: Articulates that men often go for one or the other (e.g. God or money) and same within the Church on women going ‘toward Proverbs 31 while neglecting beauty.’
  • Guest: Lack of knowledge. Not money that’s evil but the love of money. If you have money you should steward it well
  • Host quotes someone: “Excellence glorifies God and inspires men.” Christian music/films/etc are considered secondary

The obesity pandemic

  • Host: When he sees obese/overweight pastors definitely thinks there’s something wrong unless they have a disease. Alcoholism not tolerated but gluttony is.
  • Both: Dialogue on inconsistency with gluttony vs alcoholism. Pastors need to be accountable to their Elders/board.
  • Later: Hard when you see a lot of overweight or obese people in Bible studies and want to say something about it

Men and women at odds in dating

  • Host: Big things for women: Beauty, character, and spirituality. But double edged sword where some men feel women become so spiritual they don’t feel like a person anymore or set in spiritual ideologies that they become unrealistic (e.g. want Jesus but He was perfect).
  • Guest: True, but we don’t necessarily know if a woman is coming off very spiritual if she’s just excited or perhaps if testifying about Christ all the time that there might be something in the man where he feels insecure about his own walk with Christ

Although we say otherwise, physical attractiveness tends to matter the most or at least a lot

  • Host: Last men you dated what was the missing piece from 4 areas: physical attractiveness, emotional maturity, spiritual maturity, financial stability
  • Guest: Spiritual maturity. She admits she was still half foot in the world and half foot in Christ. Dated a bodybuilder as she works out too but he was a lukewarm-ish (read: not) a Christian.
  • Guest: Once she was ‘all in’ supposedly her appetite for men changed. Wants a muscular protector type man but her taste supposedly changed back to pre-workout days.
  • Host: So you went from 1% to 10% type guy? So basically he has to workout but not necessarily the best guy in the gym?
  • Host: What would you consider the most important of the 4? They both agree on spiritually.
  • Host: What he’s found personally is that even though most (Christian) women say spiritually, in practice it’s physical attraction that is the most important
  • Guest: Likes the friendship component and then getting into relationship. Sometimes attractive men don’t mesh with when dating
  • Host: Some brothers are just consistently overlooked because they don’t have the sauce (read: appearance).
  • Guest: Some also need work too. It’s OK to up your fashion and style game

Church has been creating beta factories; how that plays into women and relationships

  • Host: Church problem has created men who want to be like the ‘lamb of God,’ but not like the ‘lion of Judah.’ Wants Church to create top notch men of God and excellence all around and not just focus on spirituality
  • Host: If someone is going to be an example why not God’s people? Need to model for both men and women to see that it can exist
  • Host: Men sometimes feel like with certain Christian women it may be “too much extra work” to be with them
  • Guest: Never has heard of that but has heard of woman stepping into a man’s role being too strong. May also be due to a man’s own walk like with Deborah
  • Host: Agree and disagree. Religious women tend to put on air of perfection where she’s going to expect me to be perfect. Guest reiterates the same in a different way with a man telling her she’s perfect and she was turned off because it feels like she can’t make a mistake
  • Host: Seems like religious women may be built for pastors wives, missionary wives or nuns. Want a level of personality. Fun, fit, flexible (not rigid), etc.

Possible unrealistic expectations and why that has happened

  • Host: Have you met one guy that you want to marry?
  • Guest: Talks a bit but comes to the conclusion maybe just one.
  • Host: Christ doesn’t count as a standard because he’s perfect. The guy you want, is he even a person? Perception of a man you are looking for who may not even exist?
  • Guest: A lot of women look at men who are already built like a pastor (e.g. where they are now) but not how they got there. Pastor now versus the pastor’s journey to there
  • Host: Claps. A lot of women look at their dad as a standard, but many dad’s are great and have tons of energy with their daughters and were not always like that when younger. Father is a 40+ year old man who is mature who wasn’t always like that

Friends first before dating and why that might not be good

  • Guest: Wants someone who she can talk to about everything (e.g. probably the ‘best friend’ stereotype). Wants to be friends first before dating
  • Host: How does a guy get to know you? How much time do you invest?
  • Guest: Friends at the beginning helps to guard your heart so if you see them with someone else it’s not a downer. Didn’t really answer the rest of the question but I assume just talk until there’s mutual interest and ask each other out
  • Host: How to balance sexual interest while not sinning? Important to show interest in someone if you want to date and/or marry them.
  • Both: Back and forth between things friends do for each other versus what it may look like if someone you want to date or marry. Women have to make men feel like they desire them.
  • Host: Admissions process of Arizona versus Harvard. Why want to do Harvard than Arizona?
    Guest: Go through the process of friends and figuring the process of what marriage looks like, finanaces, etc

Christian books suck

  • Host: Christian books on relationships today suck cause often times they’re written and then the author changes opinion later. I Kissed Dating Goodbye one of the big ones. Followup Harris admits he was wrong about a bunch of it
  • Guest: Figure out a process in a set amount of time (2 months used as an example) to see if they want to date and grow or not
  • Host: How many real believers? Financially stable? Then emotional maturity? Then also physical attractive? Very small portion of men.
  • Host: Men want women to follow their process who will follow them vs Christian women’s books which give women their own process
  • Guest: Going off Dr Miles (?) book about engagement being similar to marriage
  • Host: 1 Cor 7 says if Christians are having sex they should get married.
  • Both: Go on about Joseph and Mary and whether ‘put away’ means ‘divorce’ or not and how much engagement matters there. (My thoughts: Obviously, it doesn’t, though Jewish engagement is much more serious than ours is now).

More disconnect between getting into relationships

  • Guest: Wants man to take the time to get to know and looks at how a man talks and also acts
  • Host: Still disconnect about how men perceive it and women do. Usually the men who tend to put in the most time to get to know and be nice to a girl are going to be the ‘nice guys’ so to speak. Can be mixed messages when friends are doing things that people are doing in relationships. Don’t want a Harvard level process just getting to know you
  • Guest: Can build with 5 love languages stuff. Host comments about “physical touch” and they go back and forth with more platonic and possibly massage

Women “break the rules” for alphas and some men do too

  • Host: Do boundaries get crossed when you’re with someone you’re most attracted to?
  • Both: Yes.
  • Host: Repent but there is a lesson there in that it shows desire from both man and woman. How can that be shown without sinning though?

How to not get friend zoned?

  • Host: What can men do to not get friend zoned?
  • Guest: “Relationship with God” – act different and there’s confidence. Character and fruits of God. Women get to choose who they submit to. Instagram wasn’t always like it was. Changed it to Bible stuff and more modest fitness stuff
  • Host: Want to show more examples of women of God. Went from world to God and how can God use me in the world. Similar to “The Roomates” (this youtube channel).

My thoughts overall

Host did a good job asking questions and bringing up men’s perspective. The guest woman is probably better than most women in recognizing that men and women’s process in dating can be at odds with each other, but she is fairly committed to the way in which she does things which means it’s probably going to be at odds with the way men typically want to date.

I find this to generally be normal since women have more investment in the person they choose to follow, and the host was good about articulating that she and other women do get to choose the man they want to submit to. However, it can definitely sabotage and/or turn off some men from wanting to get to know said women. Most women probably aren’t going to worry about that though since if they’re reasonably attractive they probably have a bunch of men wanting to be with them. However, it would be wise of them to better sort and make their interest known earlier and often for the men they do want.

I don’t think most women will ever be able to overcome this type of thing where they want men to do everything whether it’s spending time or whatever, but the ones who are like Ruth will more likely get a husband if they are able to get over it and show interest.

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

“Red pill” real world studies and interaction

Watched several of Alexander Grace Youtube videos. It appears he’s one of the few going out and doing so called “red pill” interviews and looking at various studies to help me see what female nature is like in real life.

A few of the studies he goes over are:

The big takeaway from this one is that the shorter you are the number of competitors you have to find a potential mate goes way up for men.

competitor numbers

Any man below 170cm (5 feet 5.7 inches) has 2-16x as many competitors, mainly because women generally prefer a man that is taller than her. Since the average female height is around 5’4″ish range that means the population significantly dips the shorter you get as a man.

The easiest male height appears to be 180-190cm which is 5’11” to 6’3″. This hits the often stated “women like men who are 6 feet” mantra while not being too tall where most women wouldn’t feel too short against that height.

The selected study is actually very interesting because the researches looked at “inaction regret” and “action regret” and see how it affected behaviors. Inaction regret would be like if you had the opportunity to do something and didn’t do it (e.g. have sex but chose not have sex) and action regret is the opposite (e.g. you had sex and then regretted it).

Basically, with action regret and casual sex they found some of the following conclusions for women, contrary to what the researches thought.

  • Action regret did not reduce casual sex for women
  • Action regret did not increase the probability that women would enter a long term relationship instead of having more casual sex and in fact increased the probability that they would have more casual sex
  • Women chose partners the same, even when regretting them

Basically, reconfirming old wisdom like “you can’t turn a hoe into a housewife” and the obvious virginity and divorce statistics.

Also reconfirming the general wisdom that women tend to be bad choosers of potential mates. Some women can be good choosers, but they generally have to be taught much like men have to be taught to be a man. Leaving women to their own devices generally trends to the casual sex and regret cycle.

This is probably the most telling picture, but there are more in the link above.

speeddate

Generally, men were pretty accurate on how much they valued attractiveness and fun, but were off on some of the others. I don’t find this surprising since most men aren’t attracted to sincerity, intelligence, or ambitiousness in women, but the biggest change is in the common interest which is relatively common. Among friend groups with similar interests like sports and other hobbies there’s usually men and women forming relationships.

Women are totally off and don’t really know what they want. Obviously, we know women won’t talk to any men they find unattractive, so it’s not surprising that they vastly underestimate attractiveness in wanting a second date. Interest and fun I think are second namely because it’s hard to show ambitiousness and intelligence except in real world scenarios and not artificial ones.

In any case, I thought those were some interesting vids to look through overall if you wanted to understand the nature of women better. The vast majority confirms most ‘RP’ concepts on hypergamy and some of the other ones listed in this post.


This post was written before he dropped a vid a day or two ago on his own relationship, so I’m adding this section in too.

h/t TomA’s summary on RPC discord:

Very interesting to watch Alexander immediately DEER (defend, excuse, explain, rationalize) the leadership role in his relationship and (1:44:20) then admit he only leads her as far as she agrees with his leadership.

He offers RP dating advice with a focus on empirical psychology and evopsycho theory. He tries to clean up RP material by being very empathetic to men and women, talks a lot about trauma (he clear had it and its a big lens of his onto the world), and is a Randian.

Check out the description of this video, he dishes it pretty straight. I like him 9 times out of 10.

Fairly good summary having watched about 10-15 of his vids and watched the above link as well.

Obviously, AG doesn’t have the Biblical perspective of Jesus choosing his disciples but they also had to be willing to and commit to follow. It’s not a “democratically elected process” as AG mentions in the video which means he only leads her insofar as she agrees with his leadership.

The sad part is that most of the Church gets thing wrong as well. Most Christian Church “the man leads the relationship” complementarians are like this as well. The husband is supposedly leading and doing his thing, until there is some disagreement to which many in the Church would often say “listen to your wife.” What this actually means is the wife is the authority and not the husband. Yeah, the husband may be the “final chooser” supposedly but often he is brow beaten if his wife gets unhappy or he SIMPs to her if she complains enough.

It’s excusable from AG but not from Christians. However, many/most Christians seem to really like this “democracy” for some reason.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 52 Comments

The rising popularity of revenge regret videos

There’s several types of videos going around that are pretty popular nowadays. For instance,

Girl Friendzones The Nice Guy, She Lives To Regret Her Decision

Gold Digger Dumps Broke Boyfriend, Then Regrets Her Decision

These videos have some good lessons under the guise of saying “don’t be with women who are using you for your money” or “don’t try to friend a woman into a relationship who treats you as her emotional tampon.”

But on the other hand, they also don’t tell men what is attractive. A man may still think the incorrect things about relationships even while learning this “lesson” and still be in deep doo doo because his framework about understanding what attracts women hasn’t changed at all. Similarly, a man who acts the way that the actor does in these videos would be unlikely to actually get into another relationship in the first place, and if he did it might be as dysfunctional as the first if he didn’t change at all and was “just himself.”

The major bad part about these types of videos is they tend to be wrapped up in over-dramatic “get back at the other person” type of mentality which is very harmful. If someone doesn’t want to be with you just leave and move on. In this respect, revenge porn is much like bitterness that keeps on giving. Ultimately, I’ve seen some men get in the cycle of bitterness and hating women and then that’s all they can think about and mull on. Leave the revenge and bitterness alone. Move on with your life.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 5 Comments

Why do women always screech when virginity is brought up?

To follow up a bit with the previous post on they can’t bring themselves to recommend the right solution, there’s been several questions on reddit and discord about this.

Overall, women HATE being judged and rejected. The reason why Lori’s “men prefer debt free virgins without tattoos” and NYCpastor’s “10 women men should not marry” went viral is because women can’t stand those two things. Virginity is the double whammy in that if she’s had sex or “made a mistake” before she’s being judged… but not only that she’s being implicitly rejected by tons of men.

The irony is NYC pastor also did a 10 men women should not marry but it only had like 2 comments before the 10 women men should not marry blew up to 1000+. Only then did it start to accumulate the same comments and hate.

Psychologically, women are turned on by being the object of desire (e.g. of a successful, handsome, charismatic leader… 10 shades of gray and other romance novels). Conversely, if women are the object of judgment and rejection that initiates their rage. It’s like an on/off switch type of thing.

The reason why women are so into social media is that they get positive attention and affirmation. Judgment and rejection rips that away into negative attention/criticism. Some women are OK with negative attention as long as they are getting paid (e.g. porn, only fans), but if they’re not getting paid and receiving only judgment and rejection they HATE it.

Women don’t really care if you hate them or whatever, but one of the worst things you can do to a woman is reject and judge them.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 30 Comments

They can’t bring themselves to recommend the right solution

This article from the Washington Examiner gets so close.

So why is marriage so much stronger among the college-educated than the non-college-educated? Cherlin doesn’t connect these dots, but he does note that “the norm that men must have steady jobs to be considered as good husbands remains strong. It may be desirable for wives to work too, but it is not required. In a 2014 national survey, 78% of never-married women said that whether a man had a steady job would be very important criterion for them in choosing a spouse or a partner, whereas just 46% of never-married men said it would be important that their spouse or partner have a steady job.”

The problem is, there simply aren’t as many gainfully employed men to go around as there used to be. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey found that, “among never-married adults ages 25 to 34, the number of employed men per 100 women dropped from 139 in 1960 to 91 in 2012, despite the fact that men in this age group outnumber young women in absolute numbers. In other words, if all never-married young women in 2012 wanted to find a young employed man who had also never been married, 9% of them would fail simply because there are not enough men in the target group.”

Where men have jobs and their “living is assured,” marriage is as strong as ever. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer men are reaching a place where their living is assured. And the problem is only looking like it will get worse. Women make up 60% of all college students and 66% of all college graduates .

If we want more children to have an equal opportunity to succeed, we are going to have to find ways to get working-age men into well-paying jobs.

The obvious solution being that boys and men are struggling in the “feminized school system.” Therefore, we need to de-emphasize female achievement and push male achievement so that more men get good jobs and also go to college and graduate school.

Let alone any liberals… most conservatives would die before they spoke out against female achievement for male achievement. They’ve tied their wagon to feminism and can’t get off the death spiral ride.

Look at how people went crazy over Lori Alexander’s Men prefer debt free virgins. Not only liberals but many conservatives and Christians. She’s right though. Not only do men prefer debt free virgins, but women prefer high wage men. Ironically, the two go together.

If women are sucking up tons of high(er) wage jobs then they’re either going to have to marry down (which they won’t) or become cat ladies (the higher likelihood).

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 13 Comments