I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but this discussion was but more detail on a long illustrated problem with no real solution. I mean face it, men in mass aren't going to go to arms for the average modern woman. A big ask indeed.
No, I totally agree! I was disappointed in myself as well. I wasn't expecting to be asked "how to fix it." I just thought I was on the show to give a history of marriage from a Christian perspective. So, all the ummm's, and circular talking was because I was thinking about his questions in real time. It is a good question that just never came across my mind before. However, I have now been able to rethink the question with a little more time to process everything. So, if you don't mind, I would like to share some of my thoughts.
First, there is the problem with Christians trying to practice their religion in a secular environment. And secondly, should we (as Christians) regulate marriage and divorce for the rest of society (unbelievers, and other religions)? The first answer is fairly easy. 1 Corinthians 7 are questions asked to Paul about marriage and divorce since they are both Jews and Gentiles living in a secular (Greco-Roman) society? Paul's answer was, regardless of what the law says you can't do or can do, practice marriage according to God's word. Example: Even if the civil law allows men and women to divorce and remarry without fault, believers should not divorce one another. And if they do, women don't remarry but remain unmarried or reconcile with your husband (1 Cor. 7:10-11) and men, don't remarry if your loosed from a wife (1 Cor. 7:27-28) but if you do, you do not sin.
The larger question about society's law regarding divorce and remarriage is a whole different ball of wax (elephant in the room etc...). We should try to shape marriage and divorce according to the Law of Moses (Christian-Judeo). It is the moral standard that is good for all people. But it seems to me, regardless of the laws, the Church should be active in people's lives as believers to encourage men and women to marry and divorce according to God's word. And if they don't, to do proper Church discipline (expel from the church and send letters to other churches in the area warning them of their sinful actions). The Church is ultimately not doing their job in teaching the truths about divorce and remarriage from scripture, not practicing proper church discipline, and not being examples to the rest of the world regarding sin and righteousness. If the church doesn't push back against immorality in the world, who will?
Then the next question is how do we change the law regarding marriage and divorce in our secular society? There is a movement in the UK that all the men dress up as super-hero's (and I mean all the men) and do crazy stunts to be put on TV. Like climbing crazy towers, and places they are not supposed too. They have signage and realize they must get the attention of the TV stations and News in order to get their message across, and they need to make a crazy scene to make that happen (something the Woman's Suffrage Movement did in its infant stage). We need to get a family law case to the Supreme Court (they have been refusing this as all the courts are courts of equity) however, with Troxel v Granville (2000) and homosexual marriage being federally protected, the Federal Government now has some skin in the game! We just have to build on it. But until then, we have to push our legislators to get rid of no-fault divorce as unlawful (violates the Contract Clause of the US Constitution) and reverse gay marriage being a fundamental right (as abortion was reversed). And lastly, have the federal courts start to admit that children are an inalienable, fundamental right of their biological parents and start getting some rights established through Troxel v Granville.
Anyways, great question and I hope you don't mind my talking about it after the fact. Although, I wish I had answered or tried to answer the question when Paul asked me. I did not try to dodge the questions on purpose, just got lost in the brain trying to explain the problem first. God bless you. Thanks!
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to throw shade on you! It's just this has been a long running question in the mens community, and reform of divorce law and activism pretty much accepted as a way forward. At this point at least no fault is being discussed in some state legislatures and mens issues are being brought to light more in the public square.
However, even if successful, these ideas only address part of the problem. The biggest obstacle in my mind is the state of the modern woman, the creation of generations of feminist indoctrination. Even if I could snap my fingers and make all the necessary legal changes, the fact remains almost no western women are fit to be wives! They simply will not accept their place in the God ordered institution.
This is the giant hair ball that needs to be unwound, and frankly I see no solution short of complete societal collapse rebooting the culture. I mean, just look at the reaction from women to the abortion question being given back to state control. That relatively mild adjustment made the majority of women lose their ever loving minds, they won't even talk to a guy they think might be conservative.
Anyway, my comment wasn't meant to be a criticism. There really is no pat answer to the question. To me MGTOW remains the most rational course a man can take. Women like to say they don't need no man, and our society has been structured to make that largely true. They've been given the vote, and no way are they going to vote themselves more dependent on men. So at this point, when it comes to marriage for men, the only winning move is to not play...
There is a quick and easy answer. The Church needs to first understand that marriage was unilateral and woman were never given the allowance to file for divorce. For the first four hundred years, the Church remained rather unanimous on this. England did not permit women to divorce. United Stares did not permit women to divorce under Coverture law. If the church starts to tell women to obey their husband and not to divorce them, or be expelled from the church as sinners, then women will learn and society can be saved in part. But you are right, there is a movement for the 19th amendment to be repealed. This MUST happen first if we wish to save our country. United States was the first major Nation that gave women the right to vote. The right to vote means the right to rule. But, as you can guess, the 19th Amendment will never be repealed. So, that means, I agree with you. There is no hope for marriage in the United States. So, men need to step up and overthrow the Government if they wish to save it. It’s the only way. Marriage is not safe, and never will be as long as legislators need to win women’s vote to stay in office. So, it is hopeless without weeding out feminism completely in our society and Nation. This is why I spent so much time explaining the Enforcement Clause in the Declaration of Independence. Not that we need to start a war, but we are already in one. The Gender Wars!!!
Fascinating discussion, indeed. I’m thankful that both the host and guest are open to studying the older models of marriage (when things worked a little better!), and compare it with what we’re doing today.
In answer to some of your questions during the interview Paul (“How do we fix this?”): We must each determine to live virtuous lives. I see this as the foundational stone.
A virtuous man who has self-control, is accountable, defends his house, stands for (and lives) his beliefs... such a man does not need an ‘overseer’ or arbiter in his affairs. This is the character that successful men had in biblical times, and the type of character that could enter into (and sustain) covenants. (Thanks Michael for enlightening us on the ‘blood’ aspect of covenant.)
The ‘powers that be’ take advantage of a lack of manhood... and true manhood is what will reverse this situation. It would be great if we could get a quicker solution... but choosing to live virtuously allows us to focus our energies in a place where we can actually see real change.
Yeah, great point. In every passage of the Bible that talks about a husband and a wife, it never mentions overseer or the Church. The clear chain of command in marriage is: God, Jesus, husband, and wife. It never says, go to your pastor and get marriage counseling!
Thanks for this, Paul: a very interesting discussion.
Scripture shows that God's view of marriage is very different from that of modern secular society. It says Adam and Eve were man and wife. They were married in God's eyes when Adam first "went into" Eve and they became "one flesh" (exactly as Jesus later pointed out). Thenceforth, she belonged to him.
Modern men and "liberated" women do not want to hear it, but God expects sexual intercourse to imply lifelong commitment. Uncommitted sex is זנה (fornication) --- it doesn't matter whether it's with a "girlfriend", a "hookup" or with a prostitute. When a male and female are joined sexually, God regards them no longer as two, but as one. Sex was --- and, to God, still is --- a covenant made in the flesh between man and woman.
As Michael correctly notes, there is no covenant without the shedding of blood --- and biblical marriage is no exception. When a young woman first has intercourse, she bleeds. (Scripture alludes to this in Deuteronomy 22:17.) The covenant is cut in her blood. It's significant that God requires virginity on the part of the woman (with the only exception being widows), yet not on the part of the man: a man may take several wives with God's blessing (though doing so is never particularly wise), but a woman may have no more than one husband at a time.
And it's great to hear someone else point out that Scripture gives absolutely no grounds whatsoever for a wife to divorce her husband. If he beats her, then she can flee his household and go and live elsewhere for the sake of her own safety (there's no law in Scripture that prohibits her doing this), but she cannot just divorce him and go off and marry another man, since she belongs to him, and so she'd be committing adultery. Hell will freeze over before you ever hear that in a church.
Hope you have Michael back on at some point for some more Biblical red pills...
Paul told me he was not able to put this on his YouTube channel because it could be seen as trying to incite a riot (violence) against our government! The truth must be told about the enforcement clause in the Declaration of Independence. We simply don’t, “vote those bums out of office.” When we understand this, we can understand the true sovereignty of WE THE PEOPLE. Please continue to encourage him to have me on again! I do mention the hymen in my book (it’s free). It explains why women could not initiate divorces in the Old Testament, but men were able to marry many wives without it being considered a sin. It is interesting fornication for men was not considered a sin in the Old Testament but looks to be in the New Testament. The difference in terminology caused Christian men to promote monogamy through out the Roman Empire and the United States (anti-polygamy laws). I would like to hear your thoughts on this? I hope to continue our conversation and please let me know if there is anyone else I can speak to about these topics! God bless you and thanks for the insight!
I did notice Paul hadn't put this one up on YouTube --- and I think this was very wise of him.
"The truth must be told about the enforcement clause in the Declaration of Independence. We simply don’t, “vote those bums out of office.” When we understand this, we can understand the true sovereignty of WE THE PEOPLE."
Voting will never work, because democracy is a sham (and quite possibly always was). I no longer vote.
As for the Declaration of Independence, I can't speak about it, as it's not a document that I have studied: Scripture is what I study. I can speak about that. Jesus didn't lead an armed uprising against Rome, nor did He teach His followers to do any such thing (Bar Kochba, the false Christ did that a century later), and so I have no remit from Scripture, and therefore cannot really comment on it. However...
I'm sceptical about the various "people's revolutions" of the 18th and 19th centuries --- the "hidden hand" of Freemasonry appears to have been behind many, if not all of them. But I'm a Limey, so I'm probably the last person you want to hear speaking about such things! However, if you are open to going back and looking at these events again, I can recommend James Perloff's two articles. He is a Bible-believing American Christian, and very staunchly conservative (he used to write for the John Birch Society).
"It is interesting fornication for men was not considered a sin in the Old Testament but looks to be in the New Testament."
There's no doubt that it's a sin in the New Testament --- we're told this repeatedly. For example, Paul warns the church at Corinth:
"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."
(1 Corinthians 6:18)
And it is sin in the Old Testament, too, for the reason mentioned in my post: God requires men to commit when they have sex. If they refuse to commit, then they defy God. A man could not deflower a virgin and then leave her: he had to commit to her for life. (See Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Exodus 22:16-17). ...It's like the sign that they used to put up in shops, "You break it, you buy it!" When David's son, Amnon, raped his virgin half-sister Tamar, she implored him not to abandon her, since, as she explained, "this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me". (2 Samuel 13:16) She understood God's Law.
God always intended sex to imply a commitment unto death. Adultery was to be punished by death under the Law God gave to His covenant people. ...And the only modification to this that Jesus made was to allow for the fact that Israel were now in exile and under Roman rule, and the Romans had reserved solely to themselves the right of executing people. Thus Jesus substituted divorce for the death penalty. He taught that a man is to divorce his wife only for the most serious sexual sin which under the Torah would have resulted in her death --- because marriage was never meant to be dissolved by anything but death. If she commits such a sin, then she destroys the marriage and is "as good as dead": her husband's obligations to her cease.
The Israelites didn't like this: they wanted to be free to fornicate, to divorce and remarry at will and so on. And Gentiles, sadly, are no different from Israelites. Since its beginnings, Christianity has been twisting the Bible to allow sexual sin --- Gentiles have proven no more faithful than Jews with God's revealed truth.
"I hope to continue our conversation and please let me know if there is anyone else I can speak to about these topics!"
I too would like to continue this, as it is so important, yet so neglected. The only other person I know of who (a) made an in-depth study of sex and marriage in both Old and New Testaments, and (b) possessed the courage to actually publish his findings about it would be the English barrister, writer and clergyman Martin Madan. Unfortunately, he died in 1790!
"God bless you and thanks for the insight!"
Thank you, Michael. I look forward to our next chat.
Au contraire. Scripture gives four lawful grounds for a woman to divorce her husband in Exodus 21. But sexual infidelity by the husband is not one of them.
I agree with Pilgrim. We met here and I did not know him before this site. However, I confirm as a second witness. What Pilgrim tells you is right! Regarding the article. It was a disagreement between John Piper responding to an article from Dr. David Instone-Brewer. I know both these guys. Dr. David helped me with my book and we spent a lot of time taking on this subject. He is incorrect on applying Exodus 21:10-11 to free women. I understand the Jews apply Exodus 21 to free women, but it was only written to a man who has a salve wife who was being neglected by a husband. The point of the story is the man had two wives, and he was not to neglect the slave wife in preference to his free wife. It does not say this, but that is the point of the teaching. This relates back to the loved and the unloved wife of Jacob and Rachel and Leah. God will not neglect the unloved slave wife, in preference to his free wife (Galatians 4:24) “ 24 which things are symbolic. For these are [g]the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” God does not show favoritism but provides the needs of those under both. If it doesn’t exactly relate to that, the morality is still the same.
Piper apparently did not understand how case law was written. It was written so that one could reason from the extreme cases to the more common cases. For example, the case of two men fighting who accidentally bump a pregnant woman (Ex 21:22) deliberately juxtaposes a case where a man normally has the right to self-defense with the life of the weakest and most precious, an unborn child. That law, in addition to Deuteronomy 25:11-12, establishes that the life of a future child trumps the right to self-defense by a man or woman. Your right to self-defense does not grant an excuse to cause the loss of life of an unborn child, even by accident.
In Exodus 21, there are four principles established that grant a wife or concubine grounds for divorce:
* failure of the husband to provide food (v. 10-11)
* failure of the husband to provide shelter/clothing (v. 10-11)
* failure of the husband to provide sexual relations (abandonment) (v. 10-11)
* beating his wife so as to cause permanent injury (v. 26-27)
The only difference between a wife and a concubine is that a wife comes into marriage with a dowry, which means her own property. The vast majority of married women in the Western world today got married without a dowry, and hence are technically concubines by the biblical definition.
Likewise, if causing permanent injury to a slave grants him or her the right to go free without payment, how much more so causing permanent injury to one's wife?
What is more interesting about the case laws is that the grounds of divorce for a wife do not include her husband taking a second wife, nor is adultery mentioned. The Church today has flipped the grounds for divorce by redefining adultery to mean the husband having sexual relations with another woman. In Scripture, adultery is clearly defined as a man having relations with the wife of another man. Only the wife is expected to be sexually exclusive to the husband, not vice versa.
When Jesus commented on divorce, he said that for a man to divorce his wife to marry another is adultery, because the husband is breaking the contract of lifelong economic support to his wife. He was applying the rule of Exodus 21:10, " If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights." By sending away his first wife to marry a second wife, the husband Jesus spoke of committed adultery by breaking the economic and sexual part of the marriage contract to his first wife.
You’re making an argument from silence. Very dangerous to do. This story was not only about a man who had a slave wife, but that a father gave his son a slave wife who already had a free wife. So, even just applying this to all slave women we must be careful. But applying this to free women is clearly not to be understood here. You don’t free wives who are already free. And it doesn’t say, give a certificate of divorce to the slave wife. So, did you give a slave wife a writ of divorce? In the story it does not say it is necessary or required. All I am saying is, applying all laws to women who are slaves to women who are free does not apply in this teaching (Ex. 21:10-11). Not all women were given dowries in the Old Testament. They were purchased by the bride price. Divorce was a private affair. That is why the man give his wife a writ of divorce and not the State or the Synagogue or Priests. Marriage became more regulated by the Sanhedrin in the 1st century. You are playing too loose with the scripture here, and as Pilgram said, when people want to divorce they will use almost any scripture and twist it to find a way out.
Slaves had different laws. Slaves are forced into marriage. Free women are not. Scripture is very clear on giving laws of slave wives that don’t apply to free wives. Like Deut. 21:10-14. “ 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”
The point of these laws is that the wife is the weaker party in the marriage covenant, and she is given greater protection by the law. The law assumes that a bride price is paid for every marriage (Exodus 22:26-27), which is why a punitive bride price is charged to a man who seduces a virgin.
It is natural that a man who paid a price for his wife might assume that he has the right to keep her, regardless of whether he upholds his side of the marriage covenant. The case law in Exodus 21 addresses the most extreme of those cases, that of a bride who was purchased but who had no dowry. Her husband would have the strongest case for saying, I paid good money, and she cannot leave me without refunding the bride price. The case law makes it clear that she has the right to divorce without refunding the bride price if her husband fails to uphold the three basic obligations of the marriage covenant. Therefore, it is obvious that an endowed wife has the same right if her husband fails to keep the terms of the marriage covenant.
The same logic applies to the right of the injured slave to go free. If that is true for a slave, for whom money was paid, it is also true for any member of the family covenant, wife, child, or servant. The principle is that the Covenant Head forfeits his property claim on his family member (wife, child, or slave) if he uses his authority to harm their bodies permanently.
For you to say that each case law only applies narrowly to the case it mentions would require the Mosaic law to include every possible case. But the Mosaic Law does not include every possible case, because it is intended for the judges to reason from the principles expressed in the extreme cases to the normal cases.
Yes, God hates divorce. And yes, He gave the ability to divorce because of the hardness of human hearts. But that does not mean that it is wrong for the aggrieved party to seek a divorce. The law provides justice. It is unjust for a man to marry a woman and then defraud her by refusing to provide her food, clothing, or sexual relations. In that case, it is the husband's heart that is hard. The law provides a means of rectifying that injustice via divorce.
What proof do you have to prove the wife is the weaker party to a marriage covenant. That is made up. A covenant is made here between two equal parties. One is not greater than the other. That is why the woman’s father was involved in the betrothal and why a bride price was paid to him. It was to protect his daughter in who to marry. That is why you might be able to say a “slave wife” was a weaker party to the marriage covenant because she was not given by her father for a bride price, but the son’s father by ownership as a gift. Only she was the weaker party and given special protections in marriage (to be set free from her husband’s neglect). The weaker vessel is talking about a woman’s physical strength in 1 Peter 3:6-7. The man is not to hurt her physically or put more on her than she can handle. This does not at all suggest that the Lord is protecting the woman by giving her a way of escape in the marriage through divorce. No where in the New Testament does it give the woman permission to file a divorce outside the wishes of her unbelieving husband (1 Cor. 7:15). The New Testament does not give a woman permission to divorce from abuse anywhere! If the Bible were to protect women as the weaker party to a marriage covenant, it would clearly say, “a wife can divorce for abuse.” But it doesn’t. You are twisting scripture if you suggest that.
These are specific laws dealing with female slaves purchased as concubines. They are not general grounds for a woman to divorce her husband.
Had there been Scriptural grounds for a woman to divorce her husband, then Jesus would have pointed them out in His teaching on divorce, just as He did with the grounds for a man to divorce his wife. Pharisees and rabbis may regard Exodus 21 as being lawful grounds for women to divorce husbands, but Jesus Himself did not. And, unlike the understanding of the Pharisees, His understanding of Scripture was perfect.
The claim that Exodus 21 can be used as justification for a wife to divorce was made in an article in Christianity Today a couple of decades ago, and was addressed by John Piper.
People want to be free to divorce (even people who go to church on Sunday). But as Scripture says, God hates divorce, and Jesus forbade it in all instances except one.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but this discussion was but more detail on a long illustrated problem with no real solution. I mean face it, men in mass aren't going to go to arms for the average modern woman. A big ask indeed.
No, I totally agree! I was disappointed in myself as well. I wasn't expecting to be asked "how to fix it." I just thought I was on the show to give a history of marriage from a Christian perspective. So, all the ummm's, and circular talking was because I was thinking about his questions in real time. It is a good question that just never came across my mind before. However, I have now been able to rethink the question with a little more time to process everything. So, if you don't mind, I would like to share some of my thoughts.
First, there is the problem with Christians trying to practice their religion in a secular environment. And secondly, should we (as Christians) regulate marriage and divorce for the rest of society (unbelievers, and other religions)? The first answer is fairly easy. 1 Corinthians 7 are questions asked to Paul about marriage and divorce since they are both Jews and Gentiles living in a secular (Greco-Roman) society? Paul's answer was, regardless of what the law says you can't do or can do, practice marriage according to God's word. Example: Even if the civil law allows men and women to divorce and remarry without fault, believers should not divorce one another. And if they do, women don't remarry but remain unmarried or reconcile with your husband (1 Cor. 7:10-11) and men, don't remarry if your loosed from a wife (1 Cor. 7:27-28) but if you do, you do not sin.
The larger question about society's law regarding divorce and remarriage is a whole different ball of wax (elephant in the room etc...). We should try to shape marriage and divorce according to the Law of Moses (Christian-Judeo). It is the moral standard that is good for all people. But it seems to me, regardless of the laws, the Church should be active in people's lives as believers to encourage men and women to marry and divorce according to God's word. And if they don't, to do proper Church discipline (expel from the church and send letters to other churches in the area warning them of their sinful actions). The Church is ultimately not doing their job in teaching the truths about divorce and remarriage from scripture, not practicing proper church discipline, and not being examples to the rest of the world regarding sin and righteousness. If the church doesn't push back against immorality in the world, who will?
Then the next question is how do we change the law regarding marriage and divorce in our secular society? There is a movement in the UK that all the men dress up as super-hero's (and I mean all the men) and do crazy stunts to be put on TV. Like climbing crazy towers, and places they are not supposed too. They have signage and realize they must get the attention of the TV stations and News in order to get their message across, and they need to make a crazy scene to make that happen (something the Woman's Suffrage Movement did in its infant stage). We need to get a family law case to the Supreme Court (they have been refusing this as all the courts are courts of equity) however, with Troxel v Granville (2000) and homosexual marriage being federally protected, the Federal Government now has some skin in the game! We just have to build on it. But until then, we have to push our legislators to get rid of no-fault divorce as unlawful (violates the Contract Clause of the US Constitution) and reverse gay marriage being a fundamental right (as abortion was reversed). And lastly, have the federal courts start to admit that children are an inalienable, fundamental right of their biological parents and start getting some rights established through Troxel v Granville.
Anyways, great question and I hope you don't mind my talking about it after the fact. Although, I wish I had answered or tried to answer the question when Paul asked me. I did not try to dodge the questions on purpose, just got lost in the brain trying to explain the problem first. God bless you. Thanks!
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to throw shade on you! It's just this has been a long running question in the mens community, and reform of divorce law and activism pretty much accepted as a way forward. At this point at least no fault is being discussed in some state legislatures and mens issues are being brought to light more in the public square.
However, even if successful, these ideas only address part of the problem. The biggest obstacle in my mind is the state of the modern woman, the creation of generations of feminist indoctrination. Even if I could snap my fingers and make all the necessary legal changes, the fact remains almost no western women are fit to be wives! They simply will not accept their place in the God ordered institution.
This is the giant hair ball that needs to be unwound, and frankly I see no solution short of complete societal collapse rebooting the culture. I mean, just look at the reaction from women to the abortion question being given back to state control. That relatively mild adjustment made the majority of women lose their ever loving minds, they won't even talk to a guy they think might be conservative.
Anyway, my comment wasn't meant to be a criticism. There really is no pat answer to the question. To me MGTOW remains the most rational course a man can take. Women like to say they don't need no man, and our society has been structured to make that largely true. They've been given the vote, and no way are they going to vote themselves more dependent on men. So at this point, when it comes to marriage for men, the only winning move is to not play...
There is a quick and easy answer. The Church needs to first understand that marriage was unilateral and woman were never given the allowance to file for divorce. For the first four hundred years, the Church remained rather unanimous on this. England did not permit women to divorce. United Stares did not permit women to divorce under Coverture law. If the church starts to tell women to obey their husband and not to divorce them, or be expelled from the church as sinners, then women will learn and society can be saved in part. But you are right, there is a movement for the 19th amendment to be repealed. This MUST happen first if we wish to save our country. United States was the first major Nation that gave women the right to vote. The right to vote means the right to rule. But, as you can guess, the 19th Amendment will never be repealed. So, that means, I agree with you. There is no hope for marriage in the United States. So, men need to step up and overthrow the Government if they wish to save it. It’s the only way. Marriage is not safe, and never will be as long as legislators need to win women’s vote to stay in office. So, it is hopeless without weeding out feminism completely in our society and Nation. This is why I spent so much time explaining the Enforcement Clause in the Declaration of Independence. Not that we need to start a war, but we are already in one. The Gender Wars!!!
Fascinating discussion, indeed. I’m thankful that both the host and guest are open to studying the older models of marriage (when things worked a little better!), and compare it with what we’re doing today.
In answer to some of your questions during the interview Paul (“How do we fix this?”): We must each determine to live virtuous lives. I see this as the foundational stone.
A virtuous man who has self-control, is accountable, defends his house, stands for (and lives) his beliefs... such a man does not need an ‘overseer’ or arbiter in his affairs. This is the character that successful men had in biblical times, and the type of character that could enter into (and sustain) covenants. (Thanks Michael for enlightening us on the ‘blood’ aspect of covenant.)
The ‘powers that be’ take advantage of a lack of manhood... and true manhood is what will reverse this situation. It would be great if we could get a quicker solution... but choosing to live virtuously allows us to focus our energies in a place where we can actually see real change.
Yeah, great point. In every passage of the Bible that talks about a husband and a wife, it never mentions overseer or the Church. The clear chain of command in marriage is: God, Jesus, husband, and wife. It never says, go to your pastor and get marriage counseling!
Thanks for this, Paul: a very interesting discussion.
Scripture shows that God's view of marriage is very different from that of modern secular society. It says Adam and Eve were man and wife. They were married in God's eyes when Adam first "went into" Eve and they became "one flesh" (exactly as Jesus later pointed out). Thenceforth, she belonged to him.
Modern men and "liberated" women do not want to hear it, but God expects sexual intercourse to imply lifelong commitment. Uncommitted sex is זנה (fornication) --- it doesn't matter whether it's with a "girlfriend", a "hookup" or with a prostitute. When a male and female are joined sexually, God regards them no longer as two, but as one. Sex was --- and, to God, still is --- a covenant made in the flesh between man and woman.
As Michael correctly notes, there is no covenant without the shedding of blood --- and biblical marriage is no exception. When a young woman first has intercourse, she bleeds. (Scripture alludes to this in Deuteronomy 22:17.) The covenant is cut in her blood. It's significant that God requires virginity on the part of the woman (with the only exception being widows), yet not on the part of the man: a man may take several wives with God's blessing (though doing so is never particularly wise), but a woman may have no more than one husband at a time.
And it's great to hear someone else point out that Scripture gives absolutely no grounds whatsoever for a wife to divorce her husband. If he beats her, then she can flee his household and go and live elsewhere for the sake of her own safety (there's no law in Scripture that prohibits her doing this), but she cannot just divorce him and go off and marry another man, since she belongs to him, and so she'd be committing adultery. Hell will freeze over before you ever hear that in a church.
Hope you have Michael back on at some point for some more Biblical red pills...
Paul told me he was not able to put this on his YouTube channel because it could be seen as trying to incite a riot (violence) against our government! The truth must be told about the enforcement clause in the Declaration of Independence. We simply don’t, “vote those bums out of office.” When we understand this, we can understand the true sovereignty of WE THE PEOPLE. Please continue to encourage him to have me on again! I do mention the hymen in my book (it’s free). It explains why women could not initiate divorces in the Old Testament, but men were able to marry many wives without it being considered a sin. It is interesting fornication for men was not considered a sin in the Old Testament but looks to be in the New Testament. The difference in terminology caused Christian men to promote monogamy through out the Roman Empire and the United States (anti-polygamy laws). I would like to hear your thoughts on this? I hope to continue our conversation and please let me know if there is anyone else I can speak to about these topics! God bless you and thanks for the insight!
I did notice Paul hadn't put this one up on YouTube --- and I think this was very wise of him.
"The truth must be told about the enforcement clause in the Declaration of Independence. We simply don’t, “vote those bums out of office.” When we understand this, we can understand the true sovereignty of WE THE PEOPLE."
Voting will never work, because democracy is a sham (and quite possibly always was). I no longer vote.
As for the Declaration of Independence, I can't speak about it, as it's not a document that I have studied: Scripture is what I study. I can speak about that. Jesus didn't lead an armed uprising against Rome, nor did He teach His followers to do any such thing (Bar Kochba, the false Christ did that a century later), and so I have no remit from Scripture, and therefore cannot really comment on it. However...
I'm sceptical about the various "people's revolutions" of the 18th and 19th centuries --- the "hidden hand" of Freemasonry appears to have been behind many, if not all of them. But I'm a Limey, so I'm probably the last person you want to hear speaking about such things! However, if you are open to going back and looking at these events again, I can recommend James Perloff's two articles. He is a Bible-believing American Christian, and very staunchly conservative (he used to write for the John Birch Society).
https://jamesperloff.net/american-revolution-part-1/
https://jamesperloff.net/american-revolution-part-2/
"It is interesting fornication for men was not considered a sin in the Old Testament but looks to be in the New Testament."
There's no doubt that it's a sin in the New Testament --- we're told this repeatedly. For example, Paul warns the church at Corinth:
"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."
(1 Corinthians 6:18)
And it is sin in the Old Testament, too, for the reason mentioned in my post: God requires men to commit when they have sex. If they refuse to commit, then they defy God. A man could not deflower a virgin and then leave her: he had to commit to her for life. (See Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Exodus 22:16-17). ...It's like the sign that they used to put up in shops, "You break it, you buy it!" When David's son, Amnon, raped his virgin half-sister Tamar, she implored him not to abandon her, since, as she explained, "this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me". (2 Samuel 13:16) She understood God's Law.
God always intended sex to imply a commitment unto death. Adultery was to be punished by death under the Law God gave to His covenant people. ...And the only modification to this that Jesus made was to allow for the fact that Israel were now in exile and under Roman rule, and the Romans had reserved solely to themselves the right of executing people. Thus Jesus substituted divorce for the death penalty. He taught that a man is to divorce his wife only for the most serious sexual sin which under the Torah would have resulted in her death --- because marriage was never meant to be dissolved by anything but death. If she commits such a sin, then she destroys the marriage and is "as good as dead": her husband's obligations to her cease.
The Israelites didn't like this: they wanted to be free to fornicate, to divorce and remarry at will and so on. And Gentiles, sadly, are no different from Israelites. Since its beginnings, Christianity has been twisting the Bible to allow sexual sin --- Gentiles have proven no more faithful than Jews with God's revealed truth.
"I hope to continue our conversation and please let me know if there is anyone else I can speak to about these topics!"
I too would like to continue this, as it is so important, yet so neglected. The only other person I know of who (a) made an in-depth study of sex and marriage in both Old and New Testaments, and (b) possessed the courage to actually publish his findings about it would be the English barrister, writer and clergyman Martin Madan. Unfortunately, he died in 1790!
"God bless you and thanks for the insight!"
Thank you, Michael. I look forward to our next chat.
God bless.
Au contraire. Scripture gives four lawful grounds for a woman to divorce her husband in Exodus 21. But sexual infidelity by the husband is not one of them.
I agree with Pilgrim. We met here and I did not know him before this site. However, I confirm as a second witness. What Pilgrim tells you is right! Regarding the article. It was a disagreement between John Piper responding to an article from Dr. David Instone-Brewer. I know both these guys. Dr. David helped me with my book and we spent a lot of time taking on this subject. He is incorrect on applying Exodus 21:10-11 to free women. I understand the Jews apply Exodus 21 to free women, but it was only written to a man who has a salve wife who was being neglected by a husband. The point of the story is the man had two wives, and he was not to neglect the slave wife in preference to his free wife. It does not say this, but that is the point of the teaching. This relates back to the loved and the unloved wife of Jacob and Rachel and Leah. God will not neglect the unloved slave wife, in preference to his free wife (Galatians 4:24) “ 24 which things are symbolic. For these are [g]the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” God does not show favoritism but provides the needs of those under both. If it doesn’t exactly relate to that, the morality is still the same.
Piper apparently did not understand how case law was written. It was written so that one could reason from the extreme cases to the more common cases. For example, the case of two men fighting who accidentally bump a pregnant woman (Ex 21:22) deliberately juxtaposes a case where a man normally has the right to self-defense with the life of the weakest and most precious, an unborn child. That law, in addition to Deuteronomy 25:11-12, establishes that the life of a future child trumps the right to self-defense by a man or woman. Your right to self-defense does not grant an excuse to cause the loss of life of an unborn child, even by accident.
In Exodus 21, there are four principles established that grant a wife or concubine grounds for divorce:
* failure of the husband to provide food (v. 10-11)
* failure of the husband to provide shelter/clothing (v. 10-11)
* failure of the husband to provide sexual relations (abandonment) (v. 10-11)
* beating his wife so as to cause permanent injury (v. 26-27)
The only difference between a wife and a concubine is that a wife comes into marriage with a dowry, which means her own property. The vast majority of married women in the Western world today got married without a dowry, and hence are technically concubines by the biblical definition.
Likewise, if causing permanent injury to a slave grants him or her the right to go free without payment, how much more so causing permanent injury to one's wife?
What is more interesting about the case laws is that the grounds of divorce for a wife do not include her husband taking a second wife, nor is adultery mentioned. The Church today has flipped the grounds for divorce by redefining adultery to mean the husband having sexual relations with another woman. In Scripture, adultery is clearly defined as a man having relations with the wife of another man. Only the wife is expected to be sexually exclusive to the husband, not vice versa.
When Jesus commented on divorce, he said that for a man to divorce his wife to marry another is adultery, because the husband is breaking the contract of lifelong economic support to his wife. He was applying the rule of Exodus 21:10, " If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights." By sending away his first wife to marry a second wife, the husband Jesus spoke of committed adultery by breaking the economic and sexual part of the marriage contract to his first wife.
You’re making an argument from silence. Very dangerous to do. This story was not only about a man who had a slave wife, but that a father gave his son a slave wife who already had a free wife. So, even just applying this to all slave women we must be careful. But applying this to free women is clearly not to be understood here. You don’t free wives who are already free. And it doesn’t say, give a certificate of divorce to the slave wife. So, did you give a slave wife a writ of divorce? In the story it does not say it is necessary or required. All I am saying is, applying all laws to women who are slaves to women who are free does not apply in this teaching (Ex. 21:10-11). Not all women were given dowries in the Old Testament. They were purchased by the bride price. Divorce was a private affair. That is why the man give his wife a writ of divorce and not the State or the Synagogue or Priests. Marriage became more regulated by the Sanhedrin in the 1st century. You are playing too loose with the scripture here, and as Pilgram said, when people want to divorce they will use almost any scripture and twist it to find a way out.
Slaves had different laws. Slaves are forced into marriage. Free women are not. Scripture is very clear on giving laws of slave wives that don’t apply to free wives. Like Deut. 21:10-14. “ 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”
The point of these laws is that the wife is the weaker party in the marriage covenant, and she is given greater protection by the law. The law assumes that a bride price is paid for every marriage (Exodus 22:26-27), which is why a punitive bride price is charged to a man who seduces a virgin.
It is natural that a man who paid a price for his wife might assume that he has the right to keep her, regardless of whether he upholds his side of the marriage covenant. The case law in Exodus 21 addresses the most extreme of those cases, that of a bride who was purchased but who had no dowry. Her husband would have the strongest case for saying, I paid good money, and she cannot leave me without refunding the bride price. The case law makes it clear that she has the right to divorce without refunding the bride price if her husband fails to uphold the three basic obligations of the marriage covenant. Therefore, it is obvious that an endowed wife has the same right if her husband fails to keep the terms of the marriage covenant.
The same logic applies to the right of the injured slave to go free. If that is true for a slave, for whom money was paid, it is also true for any member of the family covenant, wife, child, or servant. The principle is that the Covenant Head forfeits his property claim on his family member (wife, child, or slave) if he uses his authority to harm their bodies permanently.
For you to say that each case law only applies narrowly to the case it mentions would require the Mosaic law to include every possible case. But the Mosaic Law does not include every possible case, because it is intended for the judges to reason from the principles expressed in the extreme cases to the normal cases.
Yes, God hates divorce. And yes, He gave the ability to divorce because of the hardness of human hearts. But that does not mean that it is wrong for the aggrieved party to seek a divorce. The law provides justice. It is unjust for a man to marry a woman and then defraud her by refusing to provide her food, clothing, or sexual relations. In that case, it is the husband's heart that is hard. The law provides a means of rectifying that injustice via divorce.
What proof do you have to prove the wife is the weaker party to a marriage covenant. That is made up. A covenant is made here between two equal parties. One is not greater than the other. That is why the woman’s father was involved in the betrothal and why a bride price was paid to him. It was to protect his daughter in who to marry. That is why you might be able to say a “slave wife” was a weaker party to the marriage covenant because she was not given by her father for a bride price, but the son’s father by ownership as a gift. Only she was the weaker party and given special protections in marriage (to be set free from her husband’s neglect). The weaker vessel is talking about a woman’s physical strength in 1 Peter 3:6-7. The man is not to hurt her physically or put more on her than she can handle. This does not at all suggest that the Lord is protecting the woman by giving her a way of escape in the marriage through divorce. No where in the New Testament does it give the woman permission to file a divorce outside the wishes of her unbelieving husband (1 Cor. 7:15). The New Testament does not give a woman permission to divorce from abuse anywhere! If the Bible were to protect women as the weaker party to a marriage covenant, it would clearly say, “a wife can divorce for abuse.” But it doesn’t. You are twisting scripture if you suggest that.
These are specific laws dealing with female slaves purchased as concubines. They are not general grounds for a woman to divorce her husband.
Had there been Scriptural grounds for a woman to divorce her husband, then Jesus would have pointed them out in His teaching on divorce, just as He did with the grounds for a man to divorce his wife. Pharisees and rabbis may regard Exodus 21 as being lawful grounds for women to divorce husbands, but Jesus Himself did not. And, unlike the understanding of the Pharisees, His understanding of Scripture was perfect.
The claim that Exodus 21 can be used as justification for a wife to divorce was made in an article in Christianity Today a couple of decades ago, and was addressed by John Piper.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/tragically-widening-the-grounds-of-legitimate-divorce
People want to be free to divorce (even people who go to church on Sunday). But as Scripture says, God hates divorce, and Jesus forbade it in all instances except one.