And the rest of this is so uninformed and skewed it’s painful to read and even more painful to think someone actually believes this way
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Husband’s Call to Love Is A Call to Rule
- Thread starter Pacman
- Start date
A lot of us do though. It's the simplest and most consistent explanation.
While obviously this is a case of a non-believer, and someone willfully pursuing sin, it should be noted that A: as a nonbeliever, he really had no moral reason NOT to drink and such. I mean right? If you reject the Truth, there is no reason to hold oneself to it's laws...from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe, it makes absolutely no logical sense for this guy to do as his wife asks, except perhaps as a sort of personal sacrifice to not annoy her.
B: We all sin, even as believers. Of course we seek to improve, and align more with Christ in who we act ourselves to be, but seems to me simply disliking someone's sins (or being upset by them) when they don't directly hurt you is a silly reason, at best, for divorce.
C: Seems from this brief account like he was still taking care of and providing for this woman? He loved her enough to stay with her despite her criticism and different religion and so on (and from a non-believer no less!), so he seems to me to be doing what is expected of a husband...
Actually that perspective really strikes me here.
Consider that: wife, a Christian, leaves husband because of a refusal to change/stop a questionable behavior that is only indirectly hurting her.
Husband, a non-Christian, stays with wife despite her critique, her judgement, her worship of another deity, etc, and continues to take care of her.
Which of the two of those seems more like the ever-patient, ever-forebearing love of Christ?
Do not leave. He is sanctified through you. Do not send him away. With no provisos or addendums. As God has called each, in this manner let him walk. These are straight forward commands. Basic English needs no interpretation.
How can I be so sure? Because Paul's commands are informed by the essential truth that "A wife is bound as long as her husband lives"; which directly contradicts your idea she can leave after an arbitrary time of trying out his commands. A concept also contradicted by 1 Cor 7:16, "how do you know?".
When God tells us 'do not', our response shouldn't be to try and logic our way out of it a la 'has God really said do not eat?'
Where does scripture call that wicked? Exactly no where.
Where does scripture say she'd share this? Exactly no where.
To the contrary, Paul teaches...
Directly contradicting her one and only justification for the divorce.
Did she 'violate scripture' to stay with him? No. Did she 'engage in sin' to stay with him? No. Rather she 'did violence to her own feelings' by staying. That's all this is about: feelings. She made her feelings her god. No different than when modern preachers tell us it is a sin to make a women feel bad. And that's all most modern divorces are about too. I feel bored. I don't feel like staying. I can't bear to stay. I can't bear to tell her that her divorce is sinful. If we preach against divorce people will get mad.
Disenfranchise himself? You will not find that idea taught anywhere in scripture. One has to use human logic to get there. The closest one can find is 1 Cor 7:15; which is a different kind of matter.
I was thinking about Justin's writing while traveling and I had a couple realizations.
First, she wasn't necessarily spying on him. But that might mean she was instead gossiping; even worse.
Second, notice him doing this while out of town was the last straw. That indicates one of two things:
In other words, virtue signaling.
Which brings up an interesting observation. Justin's whole case depends on it being a problem for her holiness that her husband is sleeping around. Ignoring what Paul said to the contrary, this demonstrates his adherence to a false gospel. Afterall, if your holiness comes from the blood of Christ, what does it matter what your husband is doing in some other town somewhere? It doesn't one whit. Unless you have a works based gospel. [At second blush I thought maybe I was reading into this too much. But a quick perusal of Justin's First Apology verified that he did in fact adhere to a work's based Gospel]
So why again should I care what Justin Martyr thinks? It would be better if you appealed to scripture instead of the authority of men who followed a false gospel, contradicted scripture and needlessly brought persecution on the saints.
This has been rather enlightening though. I think it sheds a lot of light on a passage I previously found mysterious...
This idea, that one might be made wicked by being with an unbelieving spouse is foreign in the NT. I don't know of anything in the NT like that. The closest would be the chapter before in 1 Cor 6:16; but that one makes more sense in the original context of the word pornea (temple prostitute).
However, in light of this story it makes sense. What are the chances she WASN'T denying him sex due to his profligate ways? Mighty slim I'd say. Especially since he "alienated his wife from him by his actions". Ya, that's putting the blame on him for her own sinful sexual denial.
I'm sure you're familiar with this... "I can't stand it/feel dirty when you touch/kiss/have sex me because you do x with them/want to do y with me." Which is nothing more than emotional manipulation under the guise of purity and virtue. In other words, 'your husband is sanctified by you' was Paul calling BS on women's "virtuous" excuses for denying their husband or dumping him entirely.
I also wonder if that dynamic might be at work in women who leave their husband after he admits polygamy isn't sinful. They presume you must want it, or you wouldn't approve of it. And they feel the need to save their virtue/honor by leaving. Maybe? IDK. I think it more likely that's just a simple power play. The pursuit of a second wife constitutes a challenge to her authority and sole rule of the household/marriage; so out he must go.
First, she wasn't necessarily spying on him. But that might mean she was instead gossiping; even worse.
Second, notice him doing this while out of town was the last straw. That indicates one of two things:
- He was avoiding it at home (for her sake, what a nice guy). OR
- It wasn't at all about him doing it (irrespective of his behavior at home), it was about others seeing him do it.
In other words, virtue signaling.
Which brings up an interesting observation. Justin's whole case depends on it being a problem for her holiness that her husband is sleeping around. Ignoring what Paul said to the contrary, this demonstrates his adherence to a false gospel. Afterall, if your holiness comes from the blood of Christ, what does it matter what your husband is doing in some other town somewhere? It doesn't one whit. Unless you have a works based gospel. [At second blush I thought maybe I was reading into this too much. But a quick perusal of Justin's First Apology verified that he did in fact adhere to a work's based Gospel]
So why again should I care what Justin Martyr thinks? It would be better if you appealed to scripture instead of the authority of men who followed a false gospel, contradicted scripture and needlessly brought persecution on the saints.
This has been rather enlightening though. I think it sheds a lot of light on a passage I previously found mysterious...
This idea, that one might be made wicked by being with an unbelieving spouse is foreign in the NT. I don't know of anything in the NT like that. The closest would be the chapter before in 1 Cor 6:16; but that one makes more sense in the original context of the word pornea (temple prostitute).
However, in light of this story it makes sense. What are the chances she WASN'T denying him sex due to his profligate ways? Mighty slim I'd say. Especially since he "alienated his wife from him by his actions". Ya, that's putting the blame on him for her own sinful sexual denial.
I'm sure you're familiar with this... "I can't stand it/feel dirty when you touch/kiss/have sex me because you do x with them/want to do y with me." Which is nothing more than emotional manipulation under the guise of purity and virtue. In other words, 'your husband is sanctified by you' was Paul calling BS on women's "virtuous" excuses for denying their husband or dumping him entirely.
I also wonder if that dynamic might be at work in women who leave their husband after he admits polygamy isn't sinful. They presume you must want it, or you wouldn't approve of it. And they feel the need to save their virtue/honor by leaving. Maybe? IDK. I think it more likely that's just a simple power play. The pursuit of a second wife constitutes a challenge to her authority and sole rule of the household/marriage; so out he must go.
Looking carefully at that passage from Justin Martyr, what sin is the husband committing, specifically? What does Justin mean by "intemperate"?
I too cannot see a legitimate reason for divorce here. I see a husband and wife who were both very immoral people (the wife's former behaviour is actually described in greater detail than the husband's). She has become a Christian, changed her behaviour, and expects her husband to copy her. He isn't changing yet, so she gives up and leaves. But:
Rather, it clearly states that her friends whom she sought council from, likely the Christians in her local church as those are who she would wish to hear from on the matter, advised her to stay with him. In other words, the Christians around her, in that day, had exactly the same position on this matter stated by @rockfox and others above - that she should stay. She went against their advice and did what she felt best. If we are to take Christian theology from this account, we should see it as a confirmation of Paul's words - as that was the exact advice she was given, yet chose not to accept.
I too cannot see a legitimate reason for divorce here. I see a husband and wife who were both very immoral people (the wife's former behaviour is actually described in greater detail than the husband's). She has become a Christian, changed her behaviour, and expects her husband to copy her. He isn't changing yet, so she gives up and leaves. But:
- She was happy to live with him before she became a Christian, his behaviour didn't bother her then as she did the same, so it clearly does not cause any practical issues for her. There is no suggestion of abuse. Just that she now disagrees with the behaviour of the man she married, behaviour she formerly endorsed. It's all in her head (even though the sin is real, the effect on her is in her head). There's no practical reason she can't stay. And
- Maybe she just didn't wait long enough. Maybe even another 6 months of her witness in his life would have turned him around. Maybe her mission field in life was to be a light of God in that household - and maybe she ran from the very mission that God had placed her in.
Rather, it clearly states that her friends whom she sought council from, likely the Christians in her local church as those are who she would wish to hear from on the matter, advised her to stay with him. In other words, the Christians around her, in that day, had exactly the same position on this matter stated by @rockfox and others above - that she should stay. She went against their advice and did what she felt best. If we are to take Christian theology from this account, we should see it as a confirmation of Paul's words - as that was the exact advice she was given, yet chose not to accept.
Last edited:
Except, of course, by Justin Martyr; who spoke approvingly of her rationalizations. But you make a good point, he's the exception, the people on the ground at the local level were echoing Paul's words to her.
I need to correct this part. As I thought about it this may not be true; though the greater point still stands since God is the source of all authority and she disregarded Him.
We don't have exact details on Roman marriage law. At some point women had the power to end the marriage, but exactly when this happened and how widespread is unknown (contradictory information on the first instance). However the fact the husband brought her before the court, and the inquiry wasn't thrown out on its face; but rather she had to get a stay in order to 'put her affairs in order' before making her defense; indicates the magistrate found the case credible. Though I may be making invalid assumptions about Roman procedural law there. The text also may be implying that she was brought for prosecution, not over the divorce, but on the matter of being a Christian.
There is a lot about the legal situation unsaid, implied even, that I don't have enough historical background to read between the lines on. She was brought before the local authority, but achieved a stay in order to sort out her affairs. Why does she need to put her affairs in order before making a defense? Why does this stay mean she escaped prosecution? And why does a women escape prosecution for being a Christian but not men?
That this led Urbicus to persecute other Christians implies that 1) he found her avoidance of judgment very unjust and 2) that there was possibly more to this than a temporary stay. Somehow this allowed her to escape justice. Maybe she left and could not be found? I don't know.
Did he speak approvingly of her rationalizations? Or did he just report them as a matter of historical record?
He clearly criticises her husband for his sin, and for reporting her to the authorities as a Christian, and he is right to criticise him on both counts. But criticism of the husband on these points does not necessarily imply approval of all the actions of the wife, I'd criticise the husband yet criticise the wife also.
I cannot see any explicit approval of the wife's actions in that quote - which also means that I cannot see how it backs up @Verifyveritas76's original point, because his argument appears to be based on the assumption that Justin Martyr explicitly approved of the wife's actions, which this quote does not say. That's just an implication that can be read into it but not neccessarily correctly.
Is there some surrounding context that is not in that quote, where Justin Martyr explicitly expresses approval of the wife's actions?
Context.
Thanks for the challenge on that. I looked at it again closer and I can't pin an opinion on him either way. In hindsight I took it he supported her based on the citation and the Martyr's tone in the writing. Things like this...
It wasn't written in a way that a person who disagreed with her reaction would have in a theological writing.
However statements like this point the other way...
But both of those could be colored by translation choice.
But this isn't a theological discussion, but a report and apology to Caesar; not a theological discussion on divorce.
That said, his writing strikes me as one who is not trying to take a stand either way but rather give room for the reader to assume he has his same opinion (whichever that may be). I don't know if that is intentional or not though.
So reading back through my posts on this thread I realize that my views have developed a bit since this discussion. I think I am at the place now that I believe the Man would be held responsible by Yah in the case of him telling the woman to sin. I don't think I would fault the woman for obeying her husband in such an instance. I definitely think there are other possible and even preferable options and ultimately she could choose to remove herself from his covering instead of obeying (which is another huge decision that should not be taken lightly) but I don't believe that Yah will hold her responsible either way...
The vast majority of instruction given in scripture is given directly to men and we are responsible to discern correct application and teach that to our women and children.
Men this should weigh very heavy on our shoulders because we are ultimately responsible for what goes on in our households and we will answer for it one day. We must be studied in the scriptures and take this thing we call marriage deadly serious because it is the very thing that the father established in the garden and it is what he is using to bring his people back in these "last" days.
"she wouldn't obey" will not cut it when we stand before the father one day...
I see no justification for that in scripture.
So it looks like you're taking the standard church position that men are held responsible in every way and women never held responsible. That would be tenable if they were mere automatons with no free will. But they're not, they have free will and are quite willing to rebel; no matter how proper a man behaves.
No you are misunderstanding me or I didn’t communicate it well. I’m not saying anything remotely close to that.
Basically I think it boils down to the weightier matter... I think if he is telling her to commit a sin that is worthy of death and is attempting to force her into it even after her pleading and begging him not to. She has no choice but to sin in some way. 1. Obey him and commit the sin.
2. Disobedience and continue to live with him without submitting in that particular area.
3. Separate from his covering.
None of those choices are good ones but he is putting her in a position where she is forced to make it... this is actually a side issue to what I was trying to say but that’s a brief synopsis of how I view it...
So if what I said was so poorly written that @rockfox thinks I’m aligning myself with the modern church then I did a terrible job.
I will try it again. Basically I’m saying that we as men are responsible for what happens in our households and if we don’t do the hard work to reign in the rebellion of our women and “rule well our own household” we will not be found guiltless. This in no way removes the responsibility and accountability of the women, they will answer to Yah for their actions as well... I just think we downplay the responsibility and duty of the men if we don’t recognize the fact that it’s our job to teach, guide, and correct our women...
Man up and stop pointing the finger somewhere else. Take her in hand and do the hard work. It’s your job. Every woman is different and should be dealt with appropriately based on those differences you need to know your woman well enough to know what she needs. Allowing her to continue in sin is not loving her, so stop fooling yourself into thinking it is.
That's why I hedged with 'looks like'. I didn't think you would; that's just what it was sounding like.
Ok, that's a good framing of the problem. The issue though is, everyone then picks which of those 3 they most like. And which are the sins leading to death?
Not to mention women have no end to their ability to make up sins; including construing non-sinful matters as one of those sins leading to death. I usually go with #1 because of that tendency and because she's called to submit 'as unto the Lord'; which is to say, absolutely.
Of course, none of this disproves that the husband is called to rule; we're simply talking about exceptions here.
Go back to here. I was quoting myself from several months ago and that quote includes the particular sins I was referring to...
Not much to disagree with there. But I'm not quick to blame a man if a woman is rebelling. For many many women today, she will do that no matter what he does. In too many cases it was a lost cause from the beginning.
And that's even without every single person, pastor, religious advisor, and parent telling men it's wrong for them to rule or take any concrete steps to reign in her rebellion. Not to mention most of them will encourage it.
This list....?
Somehow I don't think scripture includes 'robbing a bank' in the list of sins leading to death (regardless what the bankers might think). The other problem is, women have a long track record of not being able to wisely judge what is "clearly against scripture".
True... I’ll give you that one...