Fathers legitimatize children

I find it interesting that children without fathers, in the past at least, were called bastards.

Perhaps it is no surprise that fatherlessness has such a negative impact on children such as dropping out of school, behavioral problems, drug and alcohol abuse, runaways, and so on.

We are legitimatized when we accept Jesus, as we are adopted into God’s family.

Romans 8:14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Non-Christians are effectively spiritual bastards, which is why they spend their lives chasing after every other thing to attempt to satisfy that identity and purpose that they don’t have.

Part of the disconnect happens, even in saved Christians, because they don’t fully understand that they are legitimatized in Christ. So they hang onto worldly desires and pleasures.

Advertisements

“You did this to him”

Funnily, enough, I agreed with much of this article over the break up of Mac Miller and Ariana Grande.

Mac Miller and Ariana Grande‘s relationship fell unusually under the tabloid radar for the majority of their two-year run. It was their breakup in May that finally captured public attention, especially since it was followed eight days later by Miller crashing his car while intoxicated and, just weeks after that, Grande getting engaged to SNL star Pete Davidson.

“It’s the most heartbreaking thing happening in Hollywood,” wrote Twitter user Elijah Flint back in May. Flint, like many presumed fans of Miller (as well as casual tabloid followers), didn’t find the heartbreak in Miller’s continuous battle with substance abuse — a battle he explored in his music and spoke openly about for years — but rather in the fact that a woman like Grande could, according to Flint, callously transform from being one man’s muse to finding love with someone else.

Grande eventually posted a long comment on twitter:

how absurd that you minimize female self-respect and self-worth by saying someone should stay in a toxic relationship because he wrote an album about them, which btw isn’t the case (just Cinderella is ab me). I am not a babysitter or a mother and no woman should feel that they need to be. I have cared for him ad tried to support his sobriety & prayed for his balance for years (and always will of course) but shaming/blaming women for a man’s inability to keep his shit together is a very major problem. let’s please stop doing that. of course I didn’t share about how hard or scary it was.

Miller eventually killed himself over a suspect drug overdose, and apparently people went crazy against Grande on twitter and Instagram.

The most Grande could be accused of is being very ignorant about entering another relationship right away after breaking up with a previous one. This is similar to shades of Asia Argento and Anthony Bourdain, where Asia was spotted with another man and Anthony committed suicide a few days later IIRC.

It’s pretty clear that both Miller and Bourdain literally thought of the women they were with as their “angel” and put them up on such a high pedestal that they couldn’t live with them once they left them. This is the exact wrong way to be in a relationship with a woman. The majority of the blame should go to these men for doing that.

Grande is right that she is not his babysitter or his mother. Nor should she be. In fact, it’s very unwise in the first place to enter relationships with anyone who has red flags like this.

The real question, though, is what if the roles had been reversed? The woman was struggling with drugs and addiction issues, and the man left the woman to be engaged. We’d probably see riots from all sides against the man.

Feminism truisms

Going off of Dalrock’s thread I’d thought I try my hand at another one.

Dalrock’s Law of Feminism:  Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

Some of the ones I’ve made before:

• Feminism is the temptation to be like god and man
• Feminism creates unsafe men then complains about it
• Feminism is an inferiority complex and white knights are enablers
• Feminism is the promotion and glorification of rebellion

My new analysis:

Feminism is the belief that men are superior to women. Therefore, women should become men, and men should become women.

Another:

Feminism is the belief that a woman’s roles and responsibilities of a wife to her husband, a mother to her children, and homemaking are worthless (when they are actually priceless). Therefore, to have any value, they must prostitute themselves to random attractive men (NSA sex, FWB, etc.) under the guise of finding themselves and prostitute themselves to corporations to make money (careerism).

No wonder women are more unhappy.

That’s the best I got for now.

More book updates

If you wanted to support the cost of getting out the book, the estimate I have for the cost of editing, cover, and all that jazz from the people who do that is around $2000-2500.

This is the way I’m taking donations if you wanted to give, as some people have expressed interest.

• https://cash.app/
• $deepstrength is the cashtag you can send money
• https://cash.me/$deepstrength
• Alternatively, buy a copy of the book when it comes out, if you’re interested in it.

A final draft of the book is almost done and will be send likely next week over to them.

These are the current sections of the book:

---

Section 1: The Bible and Culture

• Chapter 1: The Bible and Culture
• Chapter 2: Shifts in Marriage and Society
• Chapter 3: The feminization of the Church

Section 2: The Bible on Marriage

• Chapter 4: The creation of man, woman, and marriage
• Chapter 5: Sex differences and the New Testament on marriage
• Chapter 6: Marriage is optional

Section 3: Biblical Masculinity

• Chapter 7: What does it mean to be a man?
• Chapter 8: The orientation of man
• Chapter 9: Attraction
• Chapter 10: Barriers to attraction

Section 4: The transition of singlehood to relationships to marriage

• Chapter 11: Cultivating masculine leadership
• Chapter 12: A 5-step process for growing in spiritual and practical maturity
• Chapter 13: Expectation pitfalls to relationships
• Chapter 14: Managing a healthy relationship
• Chapter 15: Finding and choosing a wife: a prospective timeline

Section 5: Leading a marriage

• Chapter 16: Identify and understand your responsibilities
• Chapter 17: Understand the dysfunctional patterns
• Chapter 18: Understand the Christian approach to influence and solve marital issues
• Chapter 19: Common pitfalls to marital godliness

Book conclusions

Appendix: Objections to the theology outlined in this book

• Objections to Biblical Order
• The Fall shows differences between men and women

---

Other notes:

Overall, the book is approximately 180 pages in word, which when put into a standard book format will probably end up somewhere around 300+ pages.

The book definitely does NOT contain everything written on this blog or some of the other sources that it has pulled from, and I added in some sections that aren’t covered on this blog into the book too. The scope is too large.

It’s a solid primer that you can take and discuss with men in your Church (single or married).

I removed any sort of RP or manospherian terms and talked about everything in reference to Scripture. RP and the manosphere get a bad rap because of the PUAs, incels, and whatever else groups out there, so people are already biased against any truth if you use that terminology. Also, the Bible is the original book on human nature, so all of the secular RP copies off it anyway (and goes off in wrong or evil directions).

On divorce Part 6

This post is a re–re–re-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. Also related: polygyny and the Lysa divorce fiasco (which they are currently reconciling which is good). This is one of the original research articles that got me started on analyzing the Scriptures on divorce.

---

New evidence

The reason for this this post is that new evidence by Leslie McFall has come to light that the majority of English translations are corrupted.

It is a fact of history that the only widely available printed Greek New Testament available to the Reformers were Erasmus’s five editions of the Greek New Testament (continuously modified very slightly by subsequent editors).4 Erasmus flooded the European market with his five cheaper editions, all of which had his faulty, variant reading at Matthew 19:9. The fault was that he added an extra Greek word in Matthew 19:9 which completely altered Jesus’ teaching on divorce.

The original Greek text read: “not over fornication [which was punished by death],” so that Jesus condemned every known excuse to divorce a marriage that the rabbis could think of, besides fornication, because that particular sin had a death penalty punishment attached to it (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10). The rabbis could not give ‘fornication’ as a grounds for divorce, because, they and Jesus, knew that God had decreed the death penalty for adultery and other sexual misdemeanours.

Erasmus, a dutch humanist and also RCC priest (don’t know how that works?), didn’t like Jesus’ teaching on no divorce which was also the RCC doctrine and still is. Unfortunately, he was one of the scribes for translating the NT. The Reformers used his faulty edition when compiling their theology, and didn’t back check it according to other manuscripts.

Erasmus turned Jesus’ teaching on its head, because his new Greek text read: “except for fornication.” This alteration had Jesus agreeing with Hillel and Shammai that fornication was a legitimate grounds for divorce in His Church. This was a humanist response to a social evil in Erasmus’s day. In his opinion, the death penalty was too harsh a punishment to inflict on the poorer classes, and since he believed that God sanctioned divorce as a divine institution in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, he assumed that a compassionate Jesus would allow divorce in the case of fornication, adultery, physical abuse, and intolerable desertion.

Sadly, many Christians today prefer to follow the common-sense opinion of Erasmus and believe that a compassionate Jesus would allow divorce in the case of fornication, adultery, cruelty, and desertion. These Christians will latch on to any text or pretext that will support their private instinct of what is ‘sensible’ and appropriate in the eyes of the man of the world.

What is the evidence against Erasmus?

There is a very late Greek manuscript, Codex Leicestrensis (a Caesarean text-type manuscript, belonging to Family 13 [f13]), dated to the 15th century, which has in its margin a correction to its own faulty main text at Matthew 19:9. The faulty main text consisted of the exemption clause in Matthew 5:32 being imported into Matthew 19:9 where it replaced the so-called exception clause in that verse. However, in trying to restore the original clause of Matthew 19:9 in the margin, a later owner or collator of the Codex added the small Greek word ei (ei0, ‘if’) before the negative mh (mh\, ‘not’) to change the text to read ‘except’ (in Greek ei before mh becomes ‘if not,’ or‘except’). It has been generally assumed that Erasmus consulted this Codex during his stay in Cambridge, England, between 1511 and 1514. The question is, Did Erasmus see this marginal reading and incorporate it into his first edition, or, did someone else use Erasmus’s printed text (or alater edition of it) to insert it into the margin of Codex Leicestrensis (referred to as MS 69)? The latteris the case, as I shall show below

Who was the first to add ei (‘if’) to the inspired Word of God? The answer is clearly Erasmus himself. To date there is not a single, extant Greek manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel that contains the word eij in its main text at Matthew 19:9. Its only appearance to date is in the margin of Codex Leicestrensis. It has always been assumed by textual scholars that Erasmus saw the marginal reading in Codex Leicestrensis and that he copied it from there into his main text. This assumption was based on the belief that the marginal reading pre-dated Erasmus’s 1516 edition.

What apparently Erasmus did find as he travelled around Europe were manuscripts, such as those reflecting the text of Family 1 and Family 13,11 which imported the exemption clause of Matthew 5:32 into 19:9. Now 5:32 is a context-specific exemption clause. The mischief was caused by importing it into 19:9, where it did not belong, and was out of context.12 This particular variant reading may have led Erasmus astray, plus Jerome’s ambiguous Vulgate translation.

What does the original Greek texts of Matthew 19:9 read?

Majority Greek Text (Byzantine) Matthew 19:9: Now I say to you that whoever shall dismiss his wife—not over fornication17—and shall marry another, he commits adultery.18 And the one who marries one divorced commits adultery.19

Minority Greek Text (Vaticanus, Bezae, Leicestrensis) Matthew 19:9: Now I say to you, whoever shall dismiss his wife—apart from the matter of fornication, he makes her to commit adultery. And whoever shall marry one dismissed, he commits adultery.

Vaticanus and Bezae agree to make Matthew 19:9 conform to Matthew 5:32, and by doing so they removed any suggestion that a man could get a divorce on the grounds of fornication. Note that the underlined words: “apart from the matter of fornication, he makes her to commit adultery” is a translation of the text of Matthew 5:32, which was carelessly (or deliberately, due to a misunderstanding) imported into Matthew 19:9, where it replaced the original text, which read as the Majority Text does: “not over fornication.” This mistake is found in the Caesarean Text, Codex Leicestrensis, and in Vaticanus (but not in Sinaiticus, which supports the Majority Text at this point).

This was not Erasmus’ only “modifications” of the Scriptures.

Not content with changing the Greek text, Erasmus also changed the Latin Vulgate, which was the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church from the time of Jerome (c. AD 420).

The Latin Vulgate read: “And I say to you that: whosoever shall put away [Latin: dimiserit] his wife unless [nisi] 21 for fornication [Latin: fornicationem]: and shall marry another, committeth adultery. And whoever marries one put away: he commits adultery.” Erasmus altered this in his second edition in 1519 to read: “And I say to you that whosoever shall repudiate [Latin: repudiauerit] his wife, unless [nisi] it be for disgrace [Latin: stuprum], and shall marry another, committeth adultery.”

By changing ‘fornicationem’ to ‘stuprum,’ Erasmus widened his exceptive clause from the sexual sin of fornication, to the general, catch-all phrase of anything that gives ground for ‘dishonour, disgrace, defilement, unchastity, debauchery, lewdness, and violation,’22 all of which are the meanings given to stuprum in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. 23 Suddenly, Erasmus offered divorce not just on sexual grounds (i.e., for fornication), but for any cause that gave rise to dishonour or disgrace, which may not necessarily be sexual, such as abuse, neglect, desertion, or anything that a partner feels angry about. This brought Erasmus’s teaching into perfect alignment with the teaching of the post-A.D. 70 school of Hillel (which, apparently, used Deut 24:1-3 and Exod 21:1-10 as their base texts24).

RCC’s Latin Scriptures did not have this change, and textual scholars have rejected Erasmus’ in the past.

Of course, the Roman Catholic Complutensian Polyglot (CP)20 did not have Erasmus’s addition at Matthew 19:9, and two editors, Arias Montanus (1583) and Joseph Scaliger (1620), preferred to follow the CP text. C. Lachmann in 1842 (followed by S. P. Tregelles in 1854) using his evidence-based Greek text, was the first, modern textual scholar to reject the Erasmian addition; and every subsequent, academic edition, followed his lead. But by 1842 the damage to the institution of marriage had been done, and Protestant churches were committed in the sixteenth century to the institution of divorce as a way to end broken marriages. We would expect divorce to be institutionalised in the world, where Satan rules, but not in Christ’s Church, where His teaching should prevail.

What textual evidence supports the modifications?

Basically, Erasmus had this added to the text, and the subsequent copies confirm it. There’s more evidence than this from other documents aside from this codex. Examining all of the various manuscripts give some additional modifications that Eramus did (but didn’t really change any theology such as some in Acts).

It was shown under §1.5.1. that the corrections in the margin of Codex Leicestrensis could not have been inserted earlier than 1550 when verse numbers were introduced into the Greek New Testament for the first time. Erasmus died in 1536, so he did not see the marginal corrections in the Codex. The quest then became a matter of detective work to find out from an inductive study of the corrections themselves what printed edition was used to correct the Codex.

All of the printed editions of Erasmus’s text, and the printed editions of Elzevir’s text (under different editors), are so close in terms of their fonts and abbreviations (ligatures) that it is extremely difficult to find differences between them that would show up in the margin of the Codex. We noted that the handwritten form of the marginal correction at Matthew 19:9 narrowed down to either Curcellus (1658) or John Fell (1675). To decide between them it was necessary to collate all the corrections in Codex Leicestrensis and compare them with the texts of Curcellus and Fell.Disappointingly, there was not a single correction in Codex Leicestrensis that was found only in Felland not found in Curcellus, or vice versa, Consequently, it was not possible, on these meagre results,to settle the issue over which printed edition was used to correct the Codex. However, the corrector can be narrowed down to someone who used either Curcellus’s 1658 edition, or Bishop John Fell’s1675 edition.

We can conclude, however, that Erasmus did not see any of the 154 corrections in the margin of the Codex made by the second corrector (List B, in Appendix G). The only corrections he would have seen were the 40 made by the first hand of the Codex (List A, in Appendix G). Consequently, Erasmus did not get his reading of ei0 mh\in Matthew 19:9 from Codex Leicestrensis,which is a significant finding.

All things considered, Erasmus must made up the Greek text himself because he wanted to impose his theology on the text, and he succeeded in duping the Reformers to fall for his new doctrine. The Reformers had a weakness, because they were prone to latch on to any difference they could find between Scripture and Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions, and Erasmus handed them one such difference on a plate, and they fell completely for it. The result is that today we are living out the legacy of their error, and most Christians are content to retain Erasmus’s new doctrine because so many relatives and friends have fallen for it, and they are not prepared to give up being a disciple of Erasmus, to follow Christ Jesus, who will not tolerate any remarriages after a divorce.

Therefore, this isthe reason why the Reformers departed from the true theology on divorce from the Roman Catholic Church which states that marriage is permanent and there is no reason for divorce.

The original text is more inclusive: Jesus refers to “putting away” as both “putting away without a writ of divorce” and as divorce “put away + writ of divorce” simultaneously. Therefore, there is no reason for any putting away or divorce, even for non-sexual reasons or sexual indiscretions.

This also eliminates the “desertion” exception where you could possibly remarry. Desertion was a non-sexual reason for remarriage, but since Jesus eliminates all non-sexual reasons for divorce and remarriage then you cannot remarry while your deserting spouse is alive.

Therefore, there is no divorce period, for any cause (sexual or not sexual).

I have gone through and edited the analysis and conclusions to reflect this change.

---

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. Matthew 19:9 — The heavily misinterpreted passage of Scripture
11. Matthew 19:10-12 — the disciples actually understand the gravity of marriage
12. Matthew 1:18-19 — the case of Joseph and Mary
13. Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:13-18 — the unification of Matthew with Mark and Luke
14. Romans 7 — understanding the context of Jewish divorce
15. 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 — the Lord’s command to husbands and wives
16. 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 — Paul, not the Lord, says to live with unbelieving spouses
17. Conclusion

Let’s get started.

---

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, very few if any women that were caught in marital fraud were actually stoned. 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 is shown to follow 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 time the NT rolls around, 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.

It should be noted that the Lord still wants repentance in Jeremiah 3:14, even though He legally divorced Israel.

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. The main background behind this passage is that “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 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.

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.

Before the new evidence: I did not believe “apoluo” to be inclusive of divorce (apoluo + apostasion), but the new evidence shows that any putting away is wrong.

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?

The word “every cause” is another instance of background. 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).

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

The trap is that 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 culture 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 trap: The Pharisees wanted to see which side Jesus would take in their argument, and trap Him between Jewish and Roman Law. 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 then the Pharisees accuse Jesus to the Romans and say that He is subverting Roman law (like they eventually did before Pontius Pilate).

This is similar to other traps the Pharisees employed such as it being lawful to pay taxes to God or Caesar (Matt 22, Mark 12) which would pit Jewish law against Roman law.

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 avoiding their dispute. 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 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 (Putting the wife away AND giving her a bill of divorcement)?

The Pharisees acknowledgement that the Law of Moses declared that a divorce is composed of putting away AND bill of divorcement reveals their trap. 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 because human hearts are hard. Jesus doesn’t want “putting away” for any reason: valid divorce which is “putting away + writ of divorce” (e.g. Deut 24) or treacherous “putting away” (e.g. Malachi 2) because of the hardness of hearts.

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 not for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

We have established that Jesus is answering the Pharisees original question. Next, read the verse without the “not for clause” to understand why it makes sense.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, except it be not 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.

The meaning is obvious. If you put away your wife (with or without a writ of divorce), you’re still married to her. If you’re still married to her, both you and her commit adultery if you marry another. You can see this agrees with Jesus’ statement of “what God has put together let no man separate” and the similar statements in Mark and Luke.

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 not for fornication (porneia), and shall marry another, commit adultery (moichaō): and whoso marrieth her which is put away (apoluō) doth committeth adultery (moichaō).

The “not for fornication” clause seals off any sexual infidelity or indiscretions as a reason for divorce at all because it says if you put away, not even for fornication, adultery, or sexual indiscretions, and marry another you commit adultery.

Any “putting away” (putting away and divorce) and shall marry another — whether it is a sexual indiscretion or not — commits adultery.

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  for any reason is divorce:

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away (apoluō) his wife, not for fornication (porneia) (not even for fornication, adultery, or any other sexual indiscretions that would normally require the death penalty), 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.

11. 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.

When Jesus fulfills the Law, it is always vastly more difficult 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).

The standards of the the New Testament always supersede that of the Old Testament.

No divorce period for any non-sexual or sexual reason is a hard word. A really hard word.

12. Matthew 1:18-19 — the case of Joseph and Mary

Additional evidence is the case where Joseph was going to put Mary away.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus [r]Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been [s]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.

13. 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).

The “not for fornication” clause seals off any reason for divorce by adultery, fornication, and sexual indiscretion and therefore agrees with Mark and Luke.

14. 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.

Romans 7 does not speak specifically about whether you can legally divorce or not. Paul is speaking to the scenarios of being unbound by the law (in death) rather than about divorce because He is discussing our salvation and grace versus works. Husbands were allowed to divorce their wives in Deuteronomy 24, but wives were not allowed to divorce their husbands. Hence, when Paul speaks to the scenario of a wife being bound by the law to her husband until he dies as the example because a wife cannot divorce her husband.

15. 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 is speaking to a Roman/Greek population in the Corinthians and not the Jewish people. Hence, the Lord is speaking against the Roman law that “divorce” could be done through “putting away” or simply “departing” in the case of the wife.

Likewise, the Lord follows this up with the only correct path for those separated or divorced: stay single or reconcile. This is a hard word for most Christians because divorce and remarriage to another is not an option.

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.

16. 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 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.” That is the “liberal” interpretation of this passage, which is false in the light of new evidence.

Initially, only fornication for divorce was permitted until Erasmus established another ground, namely, desertion, using 1 Corinthians 7:15. Now, it was well recognised that 1 Corinthians7:15 on its own was ambiguous as a grounds for divorce. If Jesus was an absolutist then 1 Corinthians7:15 had to be seen in the light of Matthew 19:9 as originally written, without Erasmus’s addition of eij before mh;. In which case 1 Corinthians 7:15 would receive its natural sense that desertion was not a grounds for divorce but a grounds for giving more of one’s time to the cause of Christ.

The Scriptures must be consistent with each other and the teachings of Jesus are paramount. Desertion therefore means that you are not under the bind of marital duties (e.g. earlier in the passage, Paul tells spouses that they owe each other sex), and not that they are not under the covenant of marriage anymore.

17. 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.

“Not over fornication” causes an even harder word on divorce. It seals adultery, fornication, and any other sexual indiscretion for adultery.

1. In Matthew, any putting away, whether divorce or putting away without a writ of divorce, and marrying another is adultery per Jesus.  – Deut 22, 24; Mal 2; Jer 3; Isa 50; Matt 5, 19, Mark 10, Luke 16
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, a marriage is illegitimate if your wife committed sexual fraud prior to marriage, but under Jesus this is not a valid excuse for divorce. – Deut 22, Matthew 5, 19; Mark 10; Luke 16,
6. If a spouse leaves stay single or be reconciled. – 1 Cor 7
7. If an unbelieving spouse leaves you are not under bondage. You are not under the bondage of the roles and responsibilities of marriage, but you are still under the covenant of marriage. You must not remarry. – 1 Cor 7
   

Note: 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.

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

1. No divorce period. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Your recourse is separation if you absolutely can’t live with them.
   
2. If you are separated, stay single or reconcile. No remarriage.
3. Stay with an unbeliever if they want to live with you, otherwise you are not under the bonds of marriage. Desertion does not allow you to remarry, as you are not under the bonds of the roles and responsibilities of marriage (like sex in the earlier part of the passage). You are still under the covenant of marriage.
4. 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.
5. 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 and Orthodox methods of sacramental marriage are probably the best method to deal with marriage and divorce in a broken world. 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.

I am 100% confident that God and Jesus said that there is no divorce at all for Christians according to the Scripture based on in-depth study on all of the relevant passages in Hebrew and Greek in accordance with Christian apostolic tradition. Divorce at your own risk to your eternal soul.

Christians and the blame game

This is one of the biggest issues I’ve seen that no Christian ever talks about.

James 1:12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has [m]been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted [n]by God”; for God cannot be tempted [o]by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin [p]is accomplished, it brings forth death.

Some Christians blame God for their temptation and faults which is true and easy to spot out according to James. It’s usually our own lusts and desires that tempt us to go astray from God. We’re good enough at screwing things up ourselves as it is.

However, when we’re talking about the devil, deception, and temptation, there’s only a few unique circumstances in the Bible where Satan actually tried to deceive someone: Adam and Eve and Jesus fasting are the only ones that come to mind.

One of the big issues that we as Christians like to do nowadays is play the blame game. If we say that someone else played a part in our sin, we like to partly or even fully absolve ourselves of the responsibility that it was our fault that we got into a situation and screwed up. Our fault becomes their fault. This is antithetical to the gospel where we are sinners in need of a Savior.

In this case, even Satan becomes one of our scapegoats: Satan deceived me so it was his fault and not mine. It is often the case that it’s just us screwing up and were too prideful to admit it and want to play the blame game on the Satan. It’s crazy, but Christians actually scapegoat Satan in these circumstances. He’s evil for sure, but it was you screwing up and wanting to blame him for it. God isn’t going to blame Satan for your screw up. He’s going to come to ask you to give an accounting. Recall that God still held Eve accountable for her sin, even though she was deceived. She still knew not to eat of the tree. Being deceived into doing something wrong does not mean you get a free pass to blame someone else.

Pride blinds us to our own faults, especially when we try to scapegoat someone else for our wrongs. This is especially true in marriages where usually both parties are at fault in some matter, but each person is blaming the other or blaming their past or blaming deception.

“The devil made me do it” ain’t no excuse at all.

Some additional thoughts on modesty

Funnily enough, I had been thinking about this topic again prior to the whole “virgin, no debt, no tattoos” incident. Imagine if that also including being “modest” in there. A bigger storm would’ve been had.

Have had a couple posts on modesty before:

• Why modesty
• Exploring modesty
• Women don’t understand male attraction and implications

Conceptually, I’ve now leaned toward descriptors as a good way to explain things to women (and men for that matter):

Don’t:

• Don’t dress for attention
• Don’t dress to be ‘sexy’

Do:

• Do dress to be classy
• Do dress to be elegant
• Do dress to be feminine

Most people can look at an outfit and tell whether a person is dressing for attention or to be sexy. Also, most people can see if someone is wearing something elegant, classy, and feminine. The “don’ts” tend to be more selfish in nature, while the “dos” show you can handle yourself with poise and grace.

There is a time and place for attention and sexy: for your spouse and the marital bed.

Same goes for men, as men can be immodest in the way they dress (or don’t dress) too.

The irony is that usually when women or men dress for attention/sexy they will attract the lowest common denominator men and women who are only looking for sex while if you dress to be classy, elegant, and feminine you will attract men and women who admire you for standing out in a good way.

Why is dressing feminine included in the “Do” section?

For most cultures, that tends to be things that men don’t wear such as dresses and skirts. For these it’s pretty obvious when someone is trying to dress for attention or sexier as usually the bottoms of the skirt/dresses are rising and the tops of blouses/dresses are lowering.

That’s why it tends to be thrown in the “do” section as you can tell when someone is trying to be classy with feminine clothing as opposed to attention. Things like jeans which are more neutral clothing (or at least were invented as male style) tend to have more issues because women have many more curves than men that are more accentuated in male or neutral style clothing.

For the women that read this, Hearth(ie) has a bunch of stuff on picking good styles and colors:

https://hearthroses.wordpress.com/style-and-color-prescriptions/

Lori’s Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos

I’ve been requested to comment on the boundless article first, so might as well go back to the original.

• Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos
• Follow up: Godly Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos
• An Open Letter to the Author of “Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos
• Boundless podcast on it, which I did listen to.

Original article:

Do you know how much more attractive debt-free virgins (without tattoos) are to young men? Unfortunately, there are so few of these types of young women anymore because of the high costs of college (debt) and sexual promiscuity even within those in the church. As believers in Jesus Christ, we need to live in a way that is pleasing to Him because His ways are the best. He calls debt a burden and urges us to live lives of sexual purity.

Lori’s a bit off here. Virginity and debt are more along the lines of ‘disqualifiers’ rather than actually being ‘attractive.’ These are Biblical concepts to pay down debt and stay pure.

There are many more reasons why Christian young women should carefully consider whether or not they go to college, especially if they want to be wives and mothers someday. Secular universities teach against the God of the Bible and His ways. It’s far from what God calls women to be and do: it teaches them to be independent, loud, and immodest instead of having meek and quiet spirits.

Lori is exactly on point here, and I bolded the most important part. Both the boundless article and podcast criticized the article for being “too black and white.” That’s not how the article is presented at all as you can see by the direct quote.

Unfortunately, it seems that most of the common Christian commentariat seem to be taking the article poorly because it hits on their pet idols: education and ‘don’t judge non-virgins.’

Let’s look at another passage to see whether Lori is being fair or not. Here’s the first point, from a letter a commenter wrote in (Lori put her thoughts in parentheses).

“Men don’t want to marry a women with debt. Most of this debt comes from college. They would also prefer a woman who still lives at her parent’s house that has not had other relationships. Do those two things and you will be highly sought after.”

(I’m not sure about men only preferring women who still live at their parent’s house and have had no other relationships since some young women have no choice but to live away from their families and some have had their hearts broken by men they thought was ‘the one.’ I would agree that most men don’t want to marry a woman with a load of debt! That isn’t right to bring into a marriage.)

The letter writers comments can definitely be seen as “extreme,” but again Lori’s comments are fair in dealing with the reality of the situation.

If you go through and read the rest of Lori’s comments, they are almost all fair. They’re not black and white. They’re full of wisdom.

Obviously, it shouldn’t be a surprise that non-Christians are offended by the Bible, but I suppose it’s not a surprise that Christians with their pet idols are offended by it too. They didn’t read the article carefully at all and are jumping to conclusions.

Let’s move on to the boundless article:

First, I can tell you with confidence after more than a decade of modern courting and dating, online and off, that most men do not prefer virgins.  Ask any virgin woman you know, and she’ll tell you that most men react to her virginity with a spectrum of emotions including shock, shame, disbelief, mirth and fear. These women will say that usually, once you’re out of your teenage years, virginity is a difficult and delicate conversation you must have in your dating life, not a bragging right.

Being a virgin doesn’t guarantee you’re going to attract the cream of the crop. A few years ago, I specified my virginity on my online dating profile. I was promptly asked, by three different men, if I’d become a sister-wife in a polygamous marriage. Being a virgin also attracts deeply misogynistic men looking for a naïve, inexperienced woman whom they can control and abuse.

Virginity is a choice I continue to make because I believe that God is the God of my soul and my body, and He has laid out a very clear sexual ethic in both the Old and New Testaments. And I know there are godly men who believe the same for themselves and are seeking that in a spouse. But telling a young woman that her virginity is something that will catapult her to the front of the “wife selection line” isn’t true, and it isn’t kind to spout such prescriptive lies.

This seems questionable. Most Christian men prefer a virgin, but the author states that ‘most men.’ Given the feminization in the Church, it’s likely that the author of the post is ignoring the unattractive Christian men and lauding the opinions of the non-Christian attractive men who think that virginity is something to be ashamed of.

Virginity is a deal breaker for some Christian men, but it is at least a concern for most Christian men. She is right that it may not necessarily catapult a woman to the front of the wife selection line though: that’s physical beauty.

Second, let’s talk about the prosperity gospel inherent in your premise: “If you just do XYZ, then you’ll be worthy of the best, most godly man money can buy (or behavior can earn).” Your post tells women to be what men like so they can be deserving of the best mate. As if there is a long line of Prince Charmings out there ready to gallop in if only these girls would be good enough for them. Plant your little seeds of righteousness, ladies, and they’ll blossom into a beautiful romance.

This isn’t what the Bible teaches. This if/then religiosity leaves women feeling either guilty and worthless or — if they’re like I was in my early 20s — indignant and angry at God. I’m told I’m beautiful, smart, kind and virtuous. I can run a house, take care of a family, and am an active, vital member of my community. If I’m doing everything “right,” then where’s my godly man? Did God bait-and-switch me?

No, He didn’t. God never promised me a husband. He promised me himself — in this life and the life to come. But teachings like yours obscured that truth for many painful years of my life.

This is reading into the post. Not once did Lori or even the quoted commenter say that if you do all these things then a godly man is going to come and marry you. Projection much?

Your post also instructs women not to go to college. Here again, I’m your poster child of a dutiful young woman. I didn’t go to college — in part because I didn’t want to go deeply into debt, and because my family was going through a lot and needed me at home at that time in my life.

False. “Should carefully consider whether to go to college” is not instructing women not to go to college

I am all for living a holy life with a godly sexual ethic, and for honoring our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit and living sacrifices. I’m on board with being financially responsible and living as debt free as possible. I’ll shout from the rooftops that the ultimate end of a Christian’s educational life isn’t a diploma or a job, but is the knowledge of God, which is the greatest good.

But my message to young women is not, as yours is, “Live a disposable life. Make yourself small. Erase your heart until a man writes what he wants to see on it.”

My message to young women is this: “Learn and grow for the glory of God and the cultivation of your own soul — not simply to make yourself more attractive to a man.”

I don’t know how you can read Lori’s post and get that conclusion. It’s a huge straw man. But, again, no surprise. People are not actually reading the post clearly and are reacting in outrage with what they thought they read. Even Christians.

Also, women like ignoring attraction (physical beauty), but don’t realize that it is sabotaging their own efforts to get married.  As I’ve always said all along. Though the author is decently attractive, so my guess is that it’s her attitude that is turning men off.

Finally, the boundless podcast I think was fair for the first 10 out of about 20 minutes. They did talk about how these were more disqualifers than things were actually attractive as I referenced. However, they also fell prey to similar things as the boundless article: Lori did not tell women not to go to college: she said to carefully consider it. Also, they fell prey to the common “non-virgins are just sinners like you too” trope.

If a Christian man doesn’t want to marry a non-virgin that’s his choice and vice versa with a Christian woman not wanting to marry a non-virgin. That doesn’t make them not Christians. We can and should be selective about who we marry.

All in all, Lori’s article was good. Posting all of the commenters stances may have been a bit unwise, as some of the stances were not worded that well or what most people would call ‘extreme.’ Lori’s opinions were generally on point with the Scripture.

I would post a bunch of this to the Boundless comments section, but I can’t figure out how to log into my account there anymore. Oh well.

Feminists are trying to make Elizabeth Holmes into an anti-hero

It’s pretty hilarious, starting with the article title.

Elizabeth Holmes downfall has been explained deeply — by men.

In May, the journalist John Carreyrou, who made Theranos his white whale for years, published Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup, a potboiler about the company; I devoured it. But it didn’t slake my thirst for enlightenment about that epochal evildoer: Holmes herself. Holmes herself.

Holmes is no one’s maidservant or adjunct. She’s not Imelda Marcos or Ivanka Trump or Kellyanne Conway. Holmes is the master puppeteer of Theranos. It’s clear in Bad Blood that it was she—and no one else—who managed to drive the company’s value up to $9 billion without a working product; and she alone who was able to win unholy investments of trust, as well as a whopping $900 million from superstar investors, including education secretary Betsy DeVos and her family ($100 million) and good old Rupert Murdoch ($125 million). Holmes, in the book and now the indictments, comes off like a cheat, a pyramid schemer, an evil scientist, for heaven’s sake.

She’s also a woman. And we’re not used to self-made young female oligarchs lying outrageously, fleecing the hell out of other billionaires and conducting thunderous symphonies of global deception. There’s no American template for a powerful woman gone so gravely wrong. Holmes wasn’t insane. She wasn’t dissembling all those years to care for a sick child, or pursue another altruistic, if desperate, end. It wasn’t men, either. Though some have tried, she can’t—as the facts are laid out in Carreyrou’s book—be explained away as a victim of her deputy, sometime boyfriend and codefendant Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani. She wasn’t caving in to patriarchy.

I suppose the actual irony is that every other pyramid scheme or implosion of large companies like Enron are mainly blamed on the CEOs and people in charge: men. But let’s not get those facts in the way.

Like many who sell blind faith, Holmes’ pitch turned on gravitas, pathos, and invocations of pain and suffering. She trafficked, quite literally, in blood; she promised Theranos would save lives in hospitals, in homes, and on the battlefield. Bernie Madoff would never have sounded so earnest. P. T. Barnum would never have played his con as morally urgent. But that’s why Holmes was—for a time—the billionaire they never were.

Eventually Holmes, like so many of us, got what she feared most: a whole universe of people who don’t believe in her. Holmes’s extraordinary gift was for tragedy. With Theranos, she pulled it off.

Ah, yes, the heroine of a great tragedy. You can’t make this stuff up.

I guess that’s what you get when you have no objective moral standard though. Famous women who are fraudsters — lobbying for investment money which takes away from the pool of funding for legitimate medical companies trying to save lives — are your heroes.

RP Christians compendium

The reddit “Red Pill Christians” has a compiled compendium of their sidebar (h/t RPChristof) available now. I’ve gone through a bunch of it, and have talked to the mods who created it. It’s fairly good.

It uses a lot of RP terminology as the goal is to mentor Christian men away from the destructive aspects of RP and get them on the proper Christian discipleship track.

Here’s the link for anyone interested:

http://docdro.id/05viVhA

Link to the reddit if you wanted to discuss things there. I post some.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/

Progress is also being made on the book.