Oh wretched man that I am!

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.  1 Corinthians 2:14

In order to fulfill the things of God, we must walk after the Spirit and not after the flesh.  As I stated in my article Two types of man, there are only two types.  No alphas, no gammas, etc.  There is a carnal man, which we are when we are born.  In order to attain Christ, we must be re-born in the Spirit (John 3:5).  Then we become a spiritual man.   The Apostle Paul goes into this in more depth in Romans 8 and in 1 Corinthians 15.

Let me emphasize that we come to Jesus, old things are passed away.  We put off our old man, and become a new man in Him.  This is because Jesus resides within our Temple.  We cannot become a new man of our own efforts.  This is carnal.  While the Mosaic Law was holy, it was imperfect because it was involved performing ordinances.  Jesus put away the Law for its imperfections.   We are in a New Covenant.  The glory of the Mosaic Law reached its end in Jesus.   Paul says in Romans 8:3-4

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Hebrews 7 goes into this in more depth, that the Mosaic Law made no man perfect.  That isn’t to say there are not things in the Mosaic Law that we still obey but they are included in the Law of Christ, for we know that the Law is fulfilled if we love God and love our neighbor.  Agape love fulfills the whole of the Law.

Paul said “If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.” 2 Corinthians 5:17  The spiritual man is a new creation, a new beginning.  We are no longer the same person we were before our re-birth.

I said that to say this, the Red Pill “Christians” (among them Donal Graeme) believe that a woman still possesses the same nature that she had before she became a Christian, that without a husband to control her through his “godly masculinity” she cannot overcome her “base” nature, and will forsake her wedding vows.  He believes that during much of history legal law kept woman’s base nature under control, but that with Feminism this is no longer possible.  While I agree with them that Feminism has sought to destroy the institution of marriage, and masculinity in our society the Christian manosphere denies the power of God to transform a woman from her natural self to a spiritual woman.  For indeed, what of women who have not a husband, virgins and widows?  How do they avoid the temptations of the flesh?  They have no godly man to adore and be attracted to (please!).  They may desire a husband, but they don’t run amuck without one.   They believe that the man exhibits the godly qualities to attract and hold her.   Is it not then Jesus Christ who works through her in their marriage?  Or is it the man?

A Christian woman certainly needs the spiritual leadership of a godly man.  I am not an egalitarian, and will be the first to admit that woman does need to submit to her husband in order to protect her from following in the deception of Eve.  This does not mean that women alone can be tempted or that man on his own can prevent that temptation.  It takes the power of the Holy Ghost and agape love to accomplish this.  Ephesians 5 is accomplished through agape love, but agape love is only possible through the workings of the Holy Ghost.   Demonstration of the Spirit.

Galatians says that self-control is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:23).  While the head of man is Christ, it still requires the Holy Spirit working in the woman to follow her husband in godliness.  Without the power of the Spirit, no amount of righteousness on his part is going to make her follow him.  No amount of faith, self-control, etc, etc.  is going to get her to submit to his leadership.  I have seen women walk away from godly men walking in the Spirit simply because she fell away from the Spirit, and lost faith.

Woman naturally has a desire to control her husband.  She can only overcome this through the power of the Spirit which will help her to submit to him.   Man is required to love her as Christ loved the Church, sacrificially, providing her the spiritual leadership that she needs to insulate her from external temptations.  Her husband then reinforces the power of the Spirit working in her, by teaching her, leading her.   Self-control is of the Spirit, not of her attraction to her husband’s godliness.  Both man and woman are tempted of Satan to forsake wedding vows if they do not maintain their marital relationship (1 Corinthians 7), not just woman, so it’s vital that in addition to following the order of marriage, that they maintain the sexual aspect of marriage.   The man models Christ, but ultimately it is the Spirit that is going to accomplish these things.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that if it was only the man’s righteousness that kept a woman under control, this would negate 1 Peter 3:1 which indicates that a godly woman can win her unsaved husband through her submission to him.

The Red Pill Christians need to submit themselves to the power of the Holy Ghost so that they will understand that it is not by their power, nor their might but by demonstration of the power of the Spirit.  They must learn that their righteousness is as filthy rags, and that both man and woman need the Spirit in order to attain to stable Christian marriages.

Pamela Parizo © 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Eden and God’s Imperative

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.  Genesis 2:18 RSV

In the Book of Genesis, God creates all the animals and then He creates the Man, His image reflected in human flesh.  I first want to state that man is a separate creation from the creatures of the earth and IS NOT an animal by God’s definition.    God saw that Man was alone, unlike all His other living creatures, so He decided to create for him a help suitable for him.  God caused a sleep to come over Adam, and brought a rib out in order to fashion the woman.    Eve is not a clone of him, but it is a separate, biologically distinct creation that is nevertheless a complementary part of mankind.  So while we share a common humanity, we are biologically different.

The question has arisen in recent times, whether God intended for man to be polygamous.  The primary thing in the Bible that rules against this is that God twice had the opportunity to provide multiple partners for man and He didn’t.  At the Creation and at the Flood, God chose to have one man, one woman as the ideal to carry on mankind.  In considering this problem, I play the opposition and ask the question, what rules against man being polygamous?  Why would being polygamous not be in God’s gameplan?  I think the key goes back to the original directive God gave to the man and to the woman, to “be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth.”  I’m going to call this command, God’s Imperative.  While they are to produce children, and produce them exponentially, the purpose of all this is to replenish the earth, to fill it at the correct proportions.  At current, there are near 7.5 billion people upon the earth.   In 1900, that was 1.6 billion.  So we can see that when man multiplies at a high rate, it overruns the earth.  So, if God had given man multiple partners they would have multiplied faster than God intended.    

This one male, one female pattern can be seen further throughout the Bible.  Animals on the Ark were assembled by pairs.  The majority of people mentioned in the Bible were monogamous.  At the Flood, not only the animals, but the humans also had only one mate.  In scripture after scripture, man is directed to enjoy his wife, not wives.  To be satisfied with his wife.  Jesus reinforces this ideal when he says that God made two in the beginning.   It is true that God did not condemn polygamy in general but it was never his ideal.  Abraham had serial wives; Isaac had one wife; Jacob would have chosen only one wife but through deceit and his wives concern for having children, he ended up with two wives and two concubines.  Men were allowed to take extra wives in wartime.  David also had multiple wives.   God did not condemn these relationships because it did not violate His imperative.

Monogamy has been the most stable factor in human history, so one has to ask that if male was naturally polygamous, why there have not been more polygamous societies.  It’s because some men choose not to be monogamous.  Some men are not satisfied with one wife.  And this has been borne out in a recent scientific study.  Men and women experience lust, which is natural to our carnal natures, always wanting more than we have.

The Red Pill (and more specifically Rollo Tomassi) puts forward the evolutionary theory that Men are by nature polygamous (Male Imperative) and that Women are by nature both hypergamous (seeking the highest quality mate–the Female Imperative) and monogamous (seeking commitment).   I’ve already stated that evolution is not true, it is theoretical in nature, and violates the tenets of the Bible.  Rollo in many instances disparages the Bible.

The Male Imperative then is contrary to God’s Imperative of one man, one woman and the directive to replenish the earth.  It is born out of man’s lust.  While polygamy was allowed, as Christians we should seek God’s ideal and not man’s.  The Apostle Paul directs men to have their own wife (again, implying monogamy).  Neither the Mosaic Law nor Christianity condones men having harems of unmarried women, of having man exploit the sexuality of women, which the Red Pill and Rollo Tomassi condone.  In fact, Rollo in one place tells men they should avoid getting married.  He developed something called plate theory and believes powerful men, these “alpha males” should only pursue their self-interest and it is within their self-interest to keep many options open (women as plates) in order to avoid what he calls Oneitis.  While Oneitis (the soulmate theory) is false, I would call the Male Imperative a half-truth.  It does not meet God’s ideal.

Which brings us to the Female Imperative.  How does the Female Imperative measure against God’s Imperative?   If woman is naturally hypergamous, that is, she is seeking the most dominant, attractive and powerful mate to marry, that would not meet the ideals of Christianity.  Christianity is based not on the natural man, but the spiritual.  So, in Christianity, it is not the natural man that matters to God’s kingdom, but the spiritual man.  While we all as humans want to have a valuable companion to spend our life with and build the Kingdom of God, women who profess godliness are not looking for any of the qualities suggested by hypergamy, but rather the qualities of a godly husband–provision, protection, and spiritual leadership.  Qualities of physical beauty and attractiveness are subjective.  In terms of woman seeking commitment in a relationship, of seeking a mate who can meet her needs for safety and security for herself and her children I would say that that portion of the Female Imperative is true.  So, also, in terms of God’s Imperative, the Female Imperative is also a half-truth.

God wants us to find a mate that is suitable, both for His directive of replenishing the earth (which is less urgent in these times) and of building the Kingdom of God, building spiritually sound Christian families.  He isn’t interested in man’s lustful desire for more than one woman, or in woman’s need for an attractive, powerful mate.  He is interested in Christian families, which meets man’s and woman’s needs for companionship, love and stability within our society and the church.  A monogamous, loving relationship is God’s Imperative.

Pamela Parizo © 2017

 

Genesis 29: The love of Jacob for Rachel

And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.   And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me.  And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.  And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.  Genesis 29:18-21

Today I want to take a break from the order of things so that I can bring you a love story.   In fact, it is one of the few instances of love at first sight recorded in the Bible.   The above verses detail how Jacob the son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham came to be married to his wife Rachel.   Jacob, as we know it,  had to leave his home in Canaan because his brother Esau wanted to kill him.  Rebekah sent him to Haran to the home of her brother Laban.  When Jacob arrives he finds Rachel there tending her father’s sheep and he kisses her out of joy.

Shortly after, we are told that Jacob loves Rachel and asks Laban to give her to him to wife.  We do know that Rachel is beautiful.  However, the language of this passage, even in the Hebrew suggests that his love for her was more than just sexual passion.  Several things rule against this.  The word for love used in this passage is ahav, which can define many things, just as our word love does.  Let me say that love in the Bible is not what we think of as romantic love.  Romantic love idealizes the couple, whereas Biblical love is more real, more intense, and more soulful.

The things in this passage that rule for a heartfelt rather than an erotic love are:

  1. Use of the word love, which for the most part in the Bible does not indicate simply erotic sexual pleasure (I will go into that more)
  2. It says the time he served for her seemed like just a few days for the love that he held for her.   Not only does he have to work for her for seven years, but when we go to later verses, it indicates that he had to work an additional seven years in order to get her for his wife.  Fourteen years for one woman, whose looks I’m sure changed during that time.

Other things in the account of Jacob-Rachel that rule for a heartfelt love rather than pure sexual desire:

  1. He favored her children above Leah’s
  2.  When he thought Esau was coming for them, he set her and her children in the hindmost position (the safest)

In several articles I have read on the Jewish concept of marital love, it indicates the importance of the aspect of giving of one’s self, of loving the whole person, of loving from the heart, and I will include the links for these at the end.   Though not romantic love, it was important that a husband show his wife tenderness and affection.  To treat her simply as an object of physical pleasure was to strip her of her humanity.   Also, in Judaism, giving of oneself to one’s spouse is considered a mitzvot, a good deed.   For the Jew, unlike other peoples, everything was about the divine, so that even the pleasures of life were gifts from God.   In Judaism, human intimacy involves the heart and soul and mind, thus the commandment to love God in this manner.  Giving of one’s whole self.

The Red Pill “Christian” blogger Dalrock feels that Genesis 29 is an erotic story of love as he reduces love to sexuality in general, much contrary to the Christian concept of love expressed throughout the New Testament, and in for the most part in the old.   In this article, Dalrock admits he knows very little about the original Hebrew or the Jewish context of love, and so he has a very convoluted way of looking at texts about love (probably from aligning himself too much with the amoral Mr. Tomassi).

Dalrock uses a different version of the Bible and implies that because his version says Jacob slept with Leah and Rachel that that means there was no emotion involved.  Erroneous logic.  First, to assume that sleeping with Leah all night meant he had no emotional attachment to Rachel.  If he didn’t know it was Leah, this must have meant it was either too dark, or she was in some way disguised.  He had no way of knowing what Rachel’s body looked like or felt like, so it would have been easy to “beguile” him.  Second, sleeping with your wife is expected!  Are you not going to go in to your wife?  Does that mean you don’t have feelings for her because you sleep with her?  Juvenile reasoning, for sure.

He also compares the passage to that of Michal and David where it indicates Michal had feelings for David.   Let me just say here, that just because it doesn’t mention Rachel’s feelings in the matter doesn’t mean she didn’t care.  We simply have no way of knowing.  She doesn’t protest the marriage, that is certain.  However, we do know that the Hebrew text indicates Jacob’s great love for Rachel in the use of the word “ahavah”.  Ahavah means a deeper love and in some cases can mean “lovesick”.  It is the love Jonathan had for David, and David for Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18 and 1 Kings 1.    So we do know that Jacob had more than physical love for Rachel.

Lastly, I want to point out that in the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew to the Greek, the word for love is “agape” which is the highest form of love there is and involves affection and high esteem.  It is the word used for divine love in the New Testament.  If the passage in Genesis 29 was simply a tale of physical pleasure, they would have used the word “eros”.   While the translation of ahav to agape can seem controversial, it is less so if one goes back to the meaning of marital intimacy in the Jewish context of loving the whole person.    A man and wife can rejoice in this intimacy for this very reason that it does involve their emotions, as evidenced by the Song of Solomon.

Dalrock’s assessment that a man loving his wife is like two animals mating is contrary not only to Christian ideals, but to the Jewish context of love and what differentiates man from the beasts of the field.    A woman is more than just a body to sate one’s pleasures on, or even to enjoy simply physical pleasure with her.  It involves heart and soul.  God gave us a heart and a soul for a reason, and the red pill advocates need to find theirs.

Sources:

Kosher Sex, Judaism 101

The Intimate Component in Love and Marriage, Chabad.org

Intimacy in Marriages, Aish.com

Agape: Septuagint Verses