Sharkly on Women, Part 4

“So the sexes are clearly not equal.”

See this index.

After I wrote “Why is Disproving Arguments So Hard?,” Sharkly challenged me to explain a dozen different biblical interpretations that show that the sexes are clearly not equal. He stated…

“I may be wrong, but it seems like you believe that the sexes are roughly equal in rank.”

…to which I replied…

In Christ there is no male or female. It’s not about rank or equality, per se. These are not categories that I concern myself with on real-life day-to-day basis. Unity supersedes the others and makes discussions of rank or equality of minimal practical interest. Rank or equality/inequality only come into play if unity has failed, and rank or equality/inequality cannot produce unity.

I can see why he keeps calling me a feminist since he thinks feminists want equality and I write against patriarchy which weaponizes inequality. But feminists also weaponize inequality. It’s unclear how someone who writes against feminism could be a feminist, but I guess I’m a closet feminist (said no one ever). In any case, he expects “unassailable logic” in my responses, which while I cannot promise that, I will do my best.

The Weaker Vessel

We are clearly told that women are the “weaker vessel”.(1 Peter 3:7) So the sexes are clearly not equal.

One of the things I have never said in my entire life is that the sexes are equal, that is, equivalent. Indeed, for the same reason that people differ on the basis of IQ, they also differ on the basis of their sex: genetics! In science this is known as sexual dimorphism. In mathematics this is known as a bimodal distribution.

This is why, for example, wives ask their husbands to open the lids on jars: the grip strength of nearly all men is greater than the grip strength of nearly all women. In sciency-speak the grip strength of a woman in the 90th percentile would be at the 10th percentile for men. There is very little overlap.

When Peter speaks of women as the “weaker vessel”, this is what he says:

In the same way, husbands, live in a knowledgeable way with your wife as with a weaker vessel, showing honor to them as also being co-heirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers are not hindered. — 1 Peter 3:7 (REV)

I’ve long understood that men and women are physically different and that Peter here speaks of the rather obvious fact that women are weaker than men. What I find rather astonishing is that Sharkly needed the Bible to tell him this rather mundane fact of biology. Even atheist evolutionists understand that men—due to natural selection—are stronger, built by nature to protect their women and children. Speaking of biology, did you know that women can get pregnant and men cannot?

Oh, and before someone replies with a stupid comment—Twitter-style—…

…yes, in fact I know that it is possible to find a single woman who is stronger than a single man. Congratulations on being pedantic and missing the point. On the other hand, please, PLEASE, try to do so and upload a video. The results will be hilarious.

I believe Sharkly is trying to make some point that the bimodal distribution makes women inferior to men because they are biologically dissimilar. Let me take this moment to recall how in “Utilitarian Racism“, I rejected this godless utilitarian ethic—so favored by blankslatists and feminists—and flushed it down the toilet where it belongs:

“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.” — A.W.F. Edwards

The Image of God

Ephesians 5 teaches us that husbands image Jesus Christ, while wives image the church. So the sexes are clearly not equal.

Just a reminder that Sharkly believes that only men are in the image of God because Genesis 1:27 in the KJV…

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.

…puts a semicolon after the second clause (which isn’t in the original) and because the poem doesn’t literally say “male and female created he them in the image of God,” even though that is exactly what the three clauses together say in poetic form, and it is make even more explicit in Genesis 5:1-2:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Honestly, what was the author thinking when he made that a poem? He should have instead planned ahead for Sharkly’s misquotation! And what was he thinking when he wrote that male and female are Adam and that Adam was created in the image of God? I mean, sure that’s explicit that men and women are made in the image of God, but Sharkly is still confused.

Remember the lesson we learned in “Why Disproving Arguments is So Hard?” Yes, we embrace the axioms of our opponents. So let’s use Sharkly’s own hermeneutical method on Ephesians 5. It turns out that the image of God is nowhere mentioned in Ephesians 5. Ephesians 5 does not, in fact, teach that husbands image Jesus Christ, nor that wives image the church. I have no idea where he came to this conclusion, but it isn’t stated in cold literal terms.

Pants on fire false

Look, I don’t know what Sharkly was thinking when he wrote this, some I’m going to be charitable and assume he meant to cite 1 Corinthians 11:7:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

But if we use the Genesis 1:27 hermeneutical method, we must conclude that Paul did not, in fact, say that women are in the image of the Church, nor does he say that they is not in the image of God. In fact, the only thing it says regarding the image of God is that the husband is in the image of God. It is completely silent on anything else. Remember, we can’t infer anything about what Paul believed unless it states it so explicitly that it can only mean that.

Not this time either


Women are told to be in subjection.(1Peter 3:1-2) So the sexes are clearly not equal.

I’ve written about 1 Peter in “Sanctification in Marriage, Part 3,” “Headship” Part 6 and Part 7, and most recently in “The Context of Genesis 3:16.” Rather than rehash all of that now, 1 Peter is a book that discusses the suffering of Christians in a non-Christian world.

The submission of servants and slaves to their abusive masters is applied “in the same way” to the submission of a wife to her abusive husband or a husband to his ungodly wife. It is the duty of the one doing the submitting to suffer and endure it for the name of Christ. This is the context of 1 Peter and it is the context of submission. Peter never once tells a Christian to exercise authority over another. Quite the contrary, he implores submission by all, even at great personal cost, and even men to women (e.g. male slaves to their female masters; believing husbands to their ungodly wives), with the goal of sanctification. Like Paul, we are to freely choose to submit to each other.

This doesn’t mean that the sexes are equal, but rather Peter strongly asserts that all members of the church must show submission and humility in the way that fits their specific situation. Most importantly, both Paul and Peter agree that submission is mutual—everyone submits to everyone according to their honor due—but each person is obviously not equal.

Usurpation and Teaching

Women are not to usurp authority over men. (1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.


Men alone are allowed to represent God and teach His word to both men and women.(1 Timothy 2:12) So the sexes are clearly not equal.

In the article “exousia vs authentein“, I pointed out in footnote 2 that the KJV’s exercise of authority as negative usurpation favors the complementarian (or egalitarian, as described here) argument when combined with the most accurate exegesis of the grammar. Sharkly—who uses the KJV—is one of the few left who are still arguing that authentein means usurp, but it only works as a patriarchy argument if one ignores the flawed grammar found only in the English King James Version. I’ve not written an article on this topic on this blog yet, but all you have to do is Google search for some articles by Complementarians or Egalitarians to get a sense for what I’m talking about.

Regarding teaching, the grammar, the Greek, and the context of 1 Timothy 2:12 are not as clear as Sharkly implies. The meaning has to be understood in light of the meaning of authentein, which is itself extremely unclear. Assuming that authentein means to usurp or domineer (as Sharkly claims), then the passage is concerned correcting negative behavior, and the teaching spoken of is restricted to that scope:

If authentein doesn’t mean the normal use of authority, then it invalidates the claim that women can’t teach in church because they are not permitted the normal use of authority.

Suffice it to say that it if we work with Sharkly’s presupposition on ‘usurp’, this provides no obstacle to the non-patriarchal view, and is quite compatible with the concept of mutual submission.

Since one of these days Sharkly will research the topic more completely and conclude that the word does not mean usurp/domineer, I’m not going to waste my words on it now. When he changes his mind in the future to suit his preconceived theology, we can revisit the discussion then. For now, I accept his translation of authentein and all the logical consequences that it brings (i.e. it doesn’t support his argument).


Women are to reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:33) So the sexes are clearly not equal.

I’ve written about Ephesians 5 more than any other passage in the Bible. In “The Structure of Ephesians 5“, I showed how verses 21 through 33 form an inclusio around the word ‘fear’ (respect; reverence) in a chiastic structure. In short, the passage says this:

“Husbands and wives, be filled it the spirit, submitting to one another out of respect for Christ … each one of you also is to love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.”

Paul tells husbands and wives to submit to each other out of respect for Christ and tells wives to also respect (it is the same root word) their husbands. Given the Greek middle voice that is used, the Paul does not, in fact, tell wives to reverence their husbands. It is not an active imperative. Suffice it to say, the mutual submission that husbands and wives have for each other is tied in with respect for God and each other. The passage has a very different tone and implication from what Sharkly makes it out to be.

That said, Paul never says that husbands and wives are equal, but he also didn’t say the words that Sharkly has put in his mouth.

Cover in Prayer

Women are to cover their heads in prayer, but men should not.(1 Corinthians 11:3-9) So the sexes are clearly not equal when coming before God.

As I noted in “Paul Addressed Wives“, the reason that wives—not women, only wives—were told to cover is because they were married. In the Ancient Near East, only women who had husbands—heads—had to cover to signal that they were married and unavailable for marriage. Tertullian confirmed in “On the Veiling of Virgins”, that widows, virgins, and young girls did not have to veil in the early church. Clearing up any confusion, Paul wrote that “Hair is a Covering.”

The reason is twofold.

First, only a husband and wife are one flesh. The head-body metaphor is one of the bride-and-groom’s unity. It is why Christ and the church (his bride) use this metaphor, but it is not used for a parent and child. Only a husband can be head of his wife, so only a wife needs to be covered. Her husband is uncovered for the both of them, as he represents their unity. Anyone without a husband need not be covered.

Second, in order to clear up confusion about whether hair or a cloth veil constituted a covering, Paul made it clear that long hair qualified and that the cultural standard—cloth veiling—need not apply.

In any case, Paul’s instructions on covering have nothing to do with sex in general.


Man was created preeminently in God’s image, while woman was secondly created from man’s flesh and bone.(Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 2:18-24) So the sexes are clearly not equal in their creation.

I don’t know what “not equal in their creation” is supposed to mean. I agree that Adam was created first from the dirt (it’s a Hebrew pun) and then Eve from one of Adam’s rib (I wouldn’t be surprised if that was a pun too). I hope that admission satisfies whatever irrelevant point Sharkly was trying to make about preeminence—going first.

I don’t, of course, agree that women were not made in the image of God. That’s a ridiculous assertion that I discussed in “Sharkly on Women” and elsewhere. As I pointed out in “Sharkly on Women, Part 2“, we can’t even confidently assert that Adam kept the image of God after he sinned.


The husband is to be the head,(1 Corinthians 11:3) and the wife the helper.(Genesis 2:18) So the sexes are clearly not equal in rank.

In “The Head-Body Metaphor” I explained how the purpose of the metaphor is unity and refers way back to Adam and Eve becoming one flesh in marriage.

In “Sharkly on Women, Part 3“, I explained how the Hebrew word for helper used in the Genesis Creation account of Eve does not imply that the sexes are of different ranks. There is no sense in the word for ‘helper’ in which Eve was created as a subordinate of Adam.

Purity Laws

Women are unavoidably ceremonially unclean during menstruation,(Leviticus 15:19-27, Leviticus 18:19, Ezekiel 18:5-6, Ezekiel 36:17) So the sexes are clearly not equal. Nor does that periodic uncleanness fit the image of God.

This is such a gross—almost laughable huge—misunderstanding of what ritual purity means.

Jews did not regard Gentiles as inherently unclean. The Rabbinic writings around the time of the New Testament make this quite clear. But more importantly, not a single law in the Old Testament indicates that simple contact with a Gentile can ever cause a Jew to be unclean. The whole purpose of ritual purity laws—and the ability to become unclean—was because the people were more important to God. Gentiles were not a party to God’s Covenant, and so were not—could not be—part of the ritual purity laws. Only those inherently close to God could be ritually impure. This included Jewish women. Sharkly’s claim that “nor does that periodic uncleanness fit the image of God” is so far off the mark that it is in the opposite direction.

Sharkly wants you to think that menstrual blood makes a woman inferior to a man, but there are two problems with that. First, the discharges of a man and the discharges of a woman are equivalent in terms of uncleanliness. Second, the discharges of a Gentile are ritually clean, while the discharges of a Jew are ritually unclean.

So not only are the sexes equivalent with respect to purity laws, the differences only pertain to nationality—Jew vs Gentile—in the opposite way you would expect. The more potentially holy a person is, the more ritually impure they can become (and cause in others). There is simply no way to turn ritual purity laws into “the male sex is superior to the female sex” or even “the male sex is clearly not equal to the female sex”.


Women are natural defilers. (Revelation 14:4) So the sexes are clearly not equal.

Once again, Sharkly is way off the mark. Timothy F. Kauffman wrote:

“If Revelation 14:4 is about literal virgins, then Revelation 17:2 and Revelation 18:9 are about kings literally having sexual relations with a city, which is impossible. Once it is seen that the “fornication” involved in Revelation 17 and 18 is idolatry and other entanglements with “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth” (Revelation 17:18), or Rome, then it becomes clear that the “virgins” of Revelation 14:4 are not Roman Catholicism’s priestly celibate caste and consecrated virgins, but rather the elect who have managed to avoid Rome and her fornications.”

This is well said. I have nothing to add.


We are told specifically that women are to be shamefaced. (1 Timothy 2:9) So the sexes are clearly not of equal glory and status.

The KJV uses an archaic word that means modesty. I’m not going to explain to Sharkly why women have different modesty standards than men. If he hasn’t figured that one out by now, there is little hope for him. As I began this list with the biological differences between the sexes, so I will end it. This clearly has nothing to do with “equal glory and status.” If Sharkly is still confused, he should ask a male family member why modesty standards for women exist and why they differ from men’s standards.


  1. “It’s unclear how someone who writes against feminism could be a feminist …”

    The early church fathers grew up marinated in a gnostic culture. Even as they spent a good bit of ink refuting and railing against the Gnosticism within the church, they still were all quite Gnostic-leaning by today’s standards. If you had asked them, they would say they were anti-Gnostics, yet they failed to recognize how much they molded their doctrine and practices, in so many ways, to fit in with the Gnostic influenced culture of their day.

    Feminism is a prevailing wind of doctrine in our culture. Even those who say they are anti-Feminists would likely be seen as Feminist sympathizers by people who grew up under a truly patriarchal system closely approximating God’s holy order of patriarchy.

    Derek reminds me of Bnonn Tennant and Pastor Michael Foster. They claim to be the ones on God’s narrow way. They would claim that anybody like myself, to the right of them, or anybody like Derek, to the left of them, are both off in the ditches. Their compromises with this age’s Feminism are supposedly the Goldilocks compromises that are “just right”. They even point out that they’re taking fire from both directions, as if that proves that they’re centered “just right”. I say that God’s narrow way isn’t usually in the center of a broad way, but usually winds up the side of a steep mountain and it should be no surprise that sometimes the truth is considered extreme, leaving no possible room to be to the right of it. While everything to the left is dropping down a slope. Just because a person is in some supposed middle ground does not make them right. However it does make it tempting to claim that anybody less strict than you is a compromising Feminist and anybody more strict than you is a wife-beating “toxic” sadist, because your own position must be the path of perfect enlightenment.

    I however keep finding out that whenever I wash some more of today’s Feminism out of my eyes, I can then see that God’s narrow way is still even further to the right of me, and that our whole culture, including all our various churches are all tainted with Feminist idolatry.

    “… Peter here speaks of the rather obvious fact that women are weaker than men. What I find rather astonishing is that Sharkly needed the Bible to tell him this rather mundane fact of biology.”

    I think your assumption that Peter was trying to hammer home a no-brainer generalization is wrong? The Greek terms used are “weaker vessel”, not “weaker body”.
    Weaker = (a) weak (physically, or morally), (b) infirm, sick.
    Vessel = a vessel to contain liquid; a vessel of mercy or wrath; any instrument by which anything is done; a household utensil; of ships: tackle.

    He just as easily could be saying a less well realized and more profound statement about women that they are more morally infirm, and thus less fit to contain and bear the image of God. That makes better sense for why men would then need to be so careful in dwelling with their wives according to sound knowledge (doctrine, wisdom) and why that fact would be contrasted with the fact that women should yet be valued and esteemed as heirs together with us of the grace of life. So much of the time your interpretations assume the Author of the Bible to be a simpleton or a very poor writer.

    “I believe Sharkly is trying to make some point that the bimodal distribution makes women inferior to men because they are biologically dissimilar.”

    No. I’m saying that God made men to be His own image and glory, categorically superior to all women, who are the glory of men. Thus, all men (even the weakest 10%) come before God unveiled, while women are not to do so. (not even the strongest 10% of women)
    The key religious difference between men and women is not some relative disparity in grip strength, it is a categorical difference in our created beings, in who we are.

    “And what was he thinking when he wrote that male and female are Adam and that Adam was created in the image of God?”

    God didn’t say the female was “Adam” God said, “in the likeness of God, made He him.” (a singular male) it was a divine honor for the woman, and for all of us to be “called” by Adam’s name, which according to God’s holy order of patriarchy came to represent all of man, since all of us, including the woman, came out of him. I’ve explained the Genesis passages plainly over at my site.
    And my view doesn’t require for people to disregard all the masculine singular word forms and pronouns that God used. LOL

    “The head-body metaphor is one of the bride-and-groom’s unity. It is why Christ and the church (his bride) use this metaphor …”

    There’s more to it than that. There is a reason why Jesus Christ wasn’t the body but is instead the exalted head over the body.

    And not to change the subject, but the church is the “body of Christ”, the bride of the “Last Adam” is not the whole church but will be prepared by God from a small remnant (or rib) separated out from the side of the body of Christ, just like how the bride of the first Adam came into being. Christ does not marry His own body, but a bride made from a small remnant of his body removed from where He was symbolically opened up by a Roman spear.

    … then it becomes clear that the “virgins” of Revelation 14:4 are not Roman Catholicism’s priestly celibate caste and consecrated virgins, but rather the elect who have managed to avoid Rome and her fornications.

    But the virgin men (of Revelation 14:4) are said to have not been defiled with (the plural of Strong’s 1135) which as Derek has taught us can only mean “wives—not women, only wives”. So clearly that isn’t referring to the singular Great Whore of Rome, the Mother of Harlots. Either those men are real virgins, without wives, or else they have proverbially not wifed-up any of the many (bodies of Christ?) whoring daughter churches birthed from the Mother of Harlots, such as the Jovinians, Waldensians, and all the various “Orthodox” and protestant churches which all were originally born out of the once “catholic” Whore of Rome.

    For the record, I’m Ok accepting that men are defiled both by their wives and by their woman-worshipping churches too. And I’m also ok accepting the dictionary definition of Strong’s 1135: “a woman”

    And I don’t always use the KJV. Only about half the time. Derek just apparently doesn’t like the KJV because it is pretty scrupulous in literally translating the sex of people how God inspired it to be written in Hebrew and Greek. (languages that God created) The KJV defeats many of Derek’s egalitarian stances that hang dependent on either using a non-literal neutered translation of the Bible, or on claiming that all the original grammar is confusing and sexist and so should be ignored. Genesis is quite clear that one singular man was made in the image of God, shown through all the singular words and pronouns used in addition to the name/word “Adam”. And in the New Testament the apostle Paul further illumines the subject. Which is why Augustine used 1 Corinthians 11:7 to further illuminate Genesis 1:27 and to clarify how women are not by themselves images of God.

  2. Perhaps the Jovinians and Waldensians can claim that they did not descend from the church of Rome. I shouldn’t say that they did, even though they were probably heavily influenced by the far-reaching Whore of Rome, even as they outwardly tried to counter Rome’s wicked errors, as did all the other churches which later directly and indirectly split off from the church of Rome. However, it remains true that the Mother of Harlots has many daughters. A Church descent chart I just looked at has the beginning of Mariolatry coinciding with the beginning of the dark ages. I doubt that is just a coincidence. Worshipping the creature over the Creator will get people given over to a reprobate mind. (Romans 1) We need to not just roll back the deity of Mary, but to also roll back the image of God from off womankind, so that men are less likely to continue obeying them instead of God, as men are already prone to do. And to help restore the ideological foundation for God’s holy order of patriarchy. To prepare for the divine patriarchal government of God’s heavenly realm to be reestablished here by His true servants. As opposed to the servants of Satan, whose stated goal is to “smash the patriarchy”.

  3. Liz

    For starters….
    “Husbands, love your defilers, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”

    “He who finds a defilers finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord”

    Seems a little hard to reconcile the women-as-defilers-all-the-time channel with much of what is written in the Bible.

    1. Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
      4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
      5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

      “Husbands, love your defilers, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”

      That seems like the ultimate way for men to image Jesus Christ.(God)

      1 Peter 2:19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
      20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
      21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
      22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
      23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
      24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
      25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
      3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
      2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

      Jesus Christ was a male virgin, who did no sin, was faultless before God, neither was guile found in His mouth. And because He was an untainted firstfruit offering, not defiled with women, He could take the sin of the world in His own body on the tree and do away with it.

      Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

      Proverbs 18:22(Wycliffe) He that findeth a good woman, findeth a good thing; and of the Lord he shall draw up mirth (and he receiveth favour from the Lord). He that putteth away a good woman, putteth away a good thing; but he that holdeth (onto an) adulteress, is a fool and unwise.

      He that finds a good wife (the Amplified says [true and faithful]) finds a (“ṭō·wḇ;” beautiful, pleasant, agreeable, good) thing, and has received a favor from God. Solomon, the wise author of Proverbs, had found 1000 women (700 wives and 300 concubines) and said by divine inspiration:
      Ecclesiastes 7:28(NET) What I have continually sought, I have not found; I have found only one upright man among a thousand, but I have not found one upright woman among all of them.

      I did not say that women are defilers all the time. I have said that women are defilers of men by nature. And that like men they need to deny their own sinful nature (all the time) and instead strive to do what God made them for, and what God wants them doing. The woman was the last creature on earth created and yet the first earthly creation to defy God.

      Tertullian wrote to women: “And do you not know that you are [each] Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that [forbidden] tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die.”

      The early church didn’t have a problem reconciling “women-as-defilers” with all that was written in the scriptures. If we have that problem today, it arose out of later apostasy.

      I personally had my eyes opened to see that my wife had a sinful defiling nature. It took a lot of gross wickedness for me to realize that her constant covert degrading of me was merely her unleashing her evil inner nature, and not the result of some way in which I led her to return me evil for good. Today’s churchgoers ultimately blame men for all of their wives’ sins. But now I cannot just unsee the truth to suit churches that want to go on worshipping my wife and her kind, hearkening to women above God, and making excuses for women to defy God’s commands to them. The truth has begun setting me free. What she meant for evil, God has used for good, and because she indelibly exposed the falsehood of women’s presumed goodness to me, I can now teach others God’s truth boldly and without apologizing for its unwelcomeness in our gynocentric culture, to the glory of God, even the Father, through His Son, Jesus Christ, through men like me, foreasmuch as I was made in His image and to evoke His glory.

      1. Liz

        Christ’s mother was also “undefiled” as a virgin at His conception.
        Or is the lesson there thank goodness Mary didn’t defile any (human) man in the conception of Christ?
        If sexual congress defiles men, even in marriage (is that your assertion? seems to be, from your postings that I have read), it stands to reason the less sex in marriage the better. Which would mean a wife with “intimacy anorexia” would be more aligned with God’s plan than one who loves her husband, couple with him regularly, and has many children.

  4. 1 Corinthians 7 is a very good chapter to read concerning sex and marriage within the church.
    The Catholics teach that not only was Christ conceived without a sin nature, but that so also was Mary. I as a Protestant had grown up believing that the “immaculate conception” was referring to Jesus’ conception. It wasn’t until a few years back that I found out that the “immaculate conception” was actually how Catholics referred to Mary’s own origin. They also teach that she stayed a perpetual virgin. While Protestants hold her to have been a sinner like the rest of us who need a savior, and that she gave birth to Jesus’ siblings, most likely through Joseph.

    As I have mentioned before, the early church more actively resisted the polytheistic pantheon of Roman gods and goddesses, and the Epicurean and Hedonistic viewpoints around them, but was heavily influenced and corrupted by the competing pieties of Gnosticism, Stoicism, Cynicism, and Asceticism that infused their surrounding culture. There was an underlying belief that this physical world and all of its physical pleasures were corrupting and led you away from abstract reasoning and knowledge which were good and would naturally lead you to righteous living. Thus, they came to see sexual relations, even within marriage, as an indulgence of one’s fleshly side, and something to be avoided. However, that is clearly contrary to What the Bible teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5,9.

    What I believe Revelations 14:4 teaches is that there is a one-time defilement or lowering of men that occurs with they sacrifice of their virginity to unite into one flesh with a woman.

    The original book of Enoch, (not Enoch 2 & 3) was held by many early church leaders to be scripture, and Enoch was quoted in the book of Jude. The book of Enoch tells us that the disobedient angels were defiled, stained with the blood of the women they took and bore hybrid children by.

    So, if a man marries, so as not to burn with distracting passion, I don’t think that after consummation, and whatever initial defilement happens, that there is any reason to further avoid the sanctified sexual relations that he married to have in the first place. And married couples should not avoid sexual relations lest Satan thereby continue tempting them to any possible evil. I’m not saying that marital consummating sex is a sin, just that it lowers the man, by uniting him with a defiler.

    But marriage itself does appear to be a lowered state.
    1 Corinthians 7:32(NET) And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband.

    And yes, Jesus Christ must humble and give of Himself in order to unite with His defiling bride. We’re not at His level!

    Philippians 2:7(ESV) but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

      1. In case it wasn’t clear, the reason I mentioned the non-original Roman Catholic view of Mary being a perpetual virgin, is because after they fully adopted the Gnostic, Ascetic viewpoint that sex was a fleshly act of the physical body and was therefore always bad, at best a necessary evil forgiven by God only on account of procreation purposes, since He Himself had commanded people to be fruitful and multiply; then that’s why the Gnostic-inspired sex-avoiding Catholic church doctrine required Mary to then stay a perpetual virgin to stay perpetually sinless to make her equal to Christ and able to become co-redemptrix, and Queen of Heaven, and all that.

        Sorry for that long sentence. I believe the church of Rome even teaches that Jesus was not born vaginally, so as not to break Mary’s hymen. Christ later would walk through walls, and that is apparently how they maintain that he left Mary’s womb.

        I think it is a poor view of God to say that His planning is so poor that He made all sexual uniting a sin, after he commanded it for procreation and then He became obligated to forgive it when that sin against Him was done in accordance with His own command. It kind of makes God seem like His rules are not well thought out and only work by Him being forced into granting various divine exceptions to His own unworkable rules.

        If on the other hand you view nature and this natural world as neither good nor evil but as having been created fully good (by God’s own assessment at some point on day six) (possibly prior to His final creation, the defiler) yet having been cursed on account of Adam and subjected to futility, then it makes better sense that some things are deemed as being bad, (like Lesbian relations) simply for being against nature. If the natural world in itself always leads to evil, then things being against nature wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

        Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
        When first we practice to deceive!

        Jerome is believed to have harmed himself via severe vitamin A deficiency due to the restrictive Ascetic diet which he adopted to avoid most pleasant types of food.

        Matthew Henry’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (regarding married sex) states:
        Note, Persons expose themselves to great danger by attempting to perform what is above their strength, and at the same time not bound upon them by any law of God. If they abstain from lawful enjoyments, they may be ensnared into unlawful ones. The remedies God hath provided against sinful inclinations are certainly best.

        Much of the weirdness and complexity surrounding sex and marriage in Christendom stem from the church incorporating Gnostic ideas, and instituting control tactics, not emanating from the words of God.

  5. Pingback: Bespoke Epistles: Part 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *