Is the Red Pill Concept of Game Biblical?

In this concluding post to our series, “Is Red Pill Biblical”, we will discuss the Red Pill concept of Game and summarize what we have learned about Red Pill in comparing it to the Bible.

In the context of an LTR or Marriage what does Red Pill Game look like? For this I will refer to one of  Rollo Tomassi’s articles entitled “Dread Games” where he gives the following practical examples of game:

“Dread, for lack of a better term, is a female condition.

Although I’ve suggested casually returning flirtations with other women as a means to amplifying desire and illustrating social proof, this is hardly the only, or best, means of fostering competition anxiety. Overt flirtations are a blunt means of stoking this anxiety, but often all it takes is a nuanced shift in a predictable routine to trigger that imagination. The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value; particularly when a woman’s attention is straying into comfortable, routine familiarity and she begins seeking indignation from other sources.

Sometimes all that’s necessary to provoke that imagination is to get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work, change your routine, adopt a Game mentality, hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny with her – risk to offend her sensibilities. Most women believe that their pussies are sufficient to hold their men in thrall for a lifetime, but as a woman’s SMV declines and a Man’s appreciates their confidence in this form of leverage falls off, thus forcing them to adopt new schemas for controlling the fear of loss. When you head off to Las Vegas for that trade show and your wife fucks the ever-lovin’ shit out of you the night before you go, you’re experiencing one of those new schemas. It doesn’t take much, most times the lightest touch will do. Good dread game doesn’t even have to be initiated by you. Often enough, women will do it themselves.”

A man demonstrating his higher value, specifically his higher sexual market value (SMV) is central to the Red Pill concept of game.  In the initial attraction phase, it is all about a man showing he has higher SMV than the other guys around him thus attracting the woman to himself.  But then in an LTR or marriage situation, game switches into “dread” mode in order to stoke anxiety in the woman regarding the possible loss of her man.

This is one of those areas where I just have to flat out say that Red Pill contradicts itself.   Tomassi says regarding game that “The idea isn’t to instill terror from fear of loss, but rather to demonstrate higher value”.     But what is a man flirting with other women, changing his routine, hanging out more with friends and thus less with his wife in order to foster “competition anxiety” doing?  The answer is it is in fact instilling terror in her in the form of anxiety over possibly losing her man.

And just for those unfamiliar with this concept, SMV, or sexual market value, is the Red Pill concept that when women are in their late teens to mid-20’s (18-25) they really hold all the cards when it comes to relationships with men in the same age group.  However, as men progress past the mid-20s their SMV goes up and for women their SMV goes down.  This is why you will more often see older men with younger women and it is much rarer to see older women with younger men.

Red Pill Game Was Born Out of a Reaction to Blue Pill Game

Red Pill game was a reaction to Blue Pill game or what it sometimes refers to as “Beta Game”.  In his article “Our Sister’s Keeper”, Tomassi  explains what Beta Game is:

“Just to illustrate, for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.”

So basically, for several decades’ men have been taught if they are more sensitive (more feminine), put a woman’s ambitions ahead of their own, never correct her or judge her and basically live to make her happy this will evoke the emotional response of her desiring to have sex with them.  Red Pill is correct that this entire paradigm is absolutely flawed.  In most cases this kind of behavior will cause a woman to see a man as more of a friend, than a potential lover.

The vast majority of men today employ Beta Game which leaves women with little choice but to marry one of these men because of their need for emotional security and a man to provide for them and their future children.  They then manipulate the Beta Game for their own purpose to control the relationship with their men, using sex as a reward mechanism to reinforce their control.

So along comes Red Pill game as an alternative to Blue Pill game.  It shows the flaws in Blue Pill game by demonstrating women are not attracted to men that act in more feminine ways, but rather they are attracted to men with the Alpha mindset and Alpha physical qualities.

Why Red Pill Game Is an Unbiblical Concept

Is it wrong for a man to “get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work…hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny”? No.  These things can all be good and healthy for a man to do.  But then we must ask is it wrong for a married man to flirt with women other than his wife?

Unless he is in the courtship process pursing a second wife following the practice of Biblical polygamy then yes, it is absolutely wrong.   Flirtation outside the context and protection of courtship makes “provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” which Romans 13:14 warns against.

I have read in Red Pill forums and comment areas of men who purposefully push their wife’s emotional buttons to start a fight with her so they can have great make up sex afterwards.  Whether it be flirting with other women in front of their wife or purposefully starting a fight these methods are what the Bible would classify as “craftiness”.  And the Bible says Christians are to have no part in such things:

“But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.”

2 Corinthians 4:2 (KJV)

But the biggest problem with Red Pill game from a Biblical perspective is that it is simply the flip side of a corrupt coin. And that coin is game itself. 

What is game? It is simply the attempt of a man to evoke a desired emotional response from a woman, and that response is for her to want to have sex with him.

The focus of a Christian’s man’s life should not be on evoking emotional responses from women in his life so he can get more sex.  But rather his life focus is to be on his mission, his call to image God with his life as 1 Corinthians 11:7 states “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”.

A man images God in his life’s work outside the home in addition to being the kind of husband and father that God is within his home.  Taking a wife is certainly a big part of a man’s mission. A man’s love for his wife should be pictured in the same way God shows his love his people through his leadership, provision and protection.

And in taking a wife, a man’s primary goal with his wife should not be to evoke the desired emotional responses from her, but rather to sanctify her as the Scriptures below state:

“25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

Ephesians 5:25-27 (KJV)

In the passage above husbands are called to love their wives “as Christ also loved the church” and in Revelation 3:10 Christ tells us how he loves his churches when he states “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.

God has chosen husbands as human instruments of sanctification in the lives of their wives.  A man is called to sanctify his wife by rebuking his wife and chastening his wife as Christ does his churches.

This entire concept of a man sanctifying his wife by rebuking and chastening her is utterly rejected in the secular philosophy of Red Pill as well as the Beta teachings in both our secular world and sadly in most churches today.

So How Should Christian Husbands Deal with Sexual Denial from Their Wives?

So, if game is off the table for Christian husbands, how do Christian husbands deal with things like sexual denial from their wives?  The answer is that a Christian man should throw out the corrupt coin of game (both blue pill and red pill) and replace that with the coin of sanctification.

When you as a Christian husband realize that your sexual problems with your wife are part of a much larger issue of her sanctification things become much clearer.

The sanctification of your wife requires you to wash her in the Word just as Christ washes his Church.  That washing requires you to clearly instruct her in what God expects from her as a wife.  That instruction then goes further into your specific expectations of your wife as her husband.  Don’t worry about the fact that your expectations of your wife will be different than other men.  That is ok.  As long as you are applying the principles of God’s Word then it is right.

Most women today do not submit to their husband in any area of their marriage or family.   Some women will submit to their husband in specific areas like where they go to church, finances and rules and discipline for the children and often these women will pat themselves on the back for this kind of submission.  But it is the rare woman today who is completely submitted to her husband in the sexual arena.  The overwhelming majority of Christian women, even those who think they are submissive wives, still retain ownership and control over their bodies and their sex lives with their husbands.

And this is why you as a Christian husband cannot leave the area of sexual submission alone and simply be satisfied with these other areas of submission if they are already present.  The sanctification of a wife must start in the sexual arena because this will form the foundation for submission in all other areas of the marriage.  In most cases, a woman who submits to her “in every thing” (Ephesians 5:24) regarding her body will more easily submit to her husband “in everything” in other areas of her marriage as well.

Conclusion

Rollo Tomassi, in his article “Christian Dread” stated “I know a common refrain of more traditionalist Christians is that Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill…” which led to the question that we asked at the beginning of this series.

Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?

And the answer we have proven in this 7-part series on Red Pill is yes!

There are indeed some Red Pill teachings regarding the nature of men and women that are also found in Bible. But there are also some Red Pill teachings that conflict with the teachings of the Bible.  And even when Red Pill correctly identifies HOW the masculine and feminine human natures are different, it can never truly answer the reason of WHY they are different.  Only the Bible can do that.

Red Pill is right that Male authority over woman is indeed the birthright of every man (Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:23-24, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16).

Red Pill is right that sex is a greater need for men than for women. The Bible compares a man’s need for sex to that of his need for water (Proverbs 5:15). But Red Pill is wrong in seeing man’s life imperative as simply to sow his seed with as many women as possible.  A man’s strong sexual nature is only a part of his larger God given nature.  His imperative is so much more than to have sex, it is to image God with his life (1 Corinthians 11:7).

Red Pill is right that men naturally have a polygynous nature and the Bible reveals this nature is blessed and allowed by God (Genesis 30:18, Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Deuteronomy 25:5-7, II Samuel 12:8).   But God meant for man’s polygynous nature only to be exercised within the covenant and protection of marriage and not in the way that Red Pill Pick Up Artists exercise it as whoremongers.

Red Pill is right that women do indeed have a hypergamous nature always seeking the next best man to be with.  But Red Pill is wrong in seeing this as an amoral trait in women and simply a product of evolution for women to get the strongest and best seed from men.  God directly condemns feminine hypergamy in the 7th commandment when he said in Exodus 20:14 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”. Feminine hypergamy was seen as so dangerous to society that God prescribed the death penalty for it in Deuteronomy 22:22.

Red Pill is right that a woman should never be a man’s mental point of origin.  But Red Pill is wrong in saying that a man should make himself and his desires the focal point of his life. The Bible tells men that Christ and the life mission God has given them to image him should be the focal point of their life and not a woman (Genesis 3:17, Ecclesiastes 7:26, 1 Corinthians 11:7, 2 Corinthians 10:5).

Red Pill is right that men need to establish frame, or their worldview, in a relationship with a woman from the very beginning.  And they need to hold that frame.  In any courtship it is crucial that a man establish his frame with a potential wife and if he cannot establish that frame with her during their courtship, he most certainly should not marry her.

However Red Pill’s objection to overt methods of men holding frame opting only for covert and subtle influence does not match the Biblical call of men to rebuke and discipline their wives as Christ does his Church (Revelation 3:19).  A man should set the frame not through subtle or crafty means, but rather through direct and plain instruction to his wife based upon the Word of God and when she seeks to control the frame he rebukes and disciplines her until she returns to his frame.

The Red Pill concept of Game has no place in Biblical Christianity.   As we said earlier, it is not wrong for a man to do things like “get to the gym, dress better, get a raise, travel for work…hang out with a new (or old) friend, be cocky & funny”.   But it is wrong to state that he must earn sex with his wife by doing these things to increase his SMV status with her.

The  only “status” that matters in God’s perspective is that he is her husband and she has a duty to lovingly have sex with him whenever he so desires it.

Game is wrong because it is completely based on an appeal to a woman’s emotions in order to get her to have sex.  In this way game, whether it is Red Pill or Blue Pill, makes a woman’s feelings the central focus of sex between a man and woman.  The Biblical view of sex is that it is not based on feelings, but rather on duty (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).  Sex is referred to as something that is rendered, that is due and a right in marriage.

The Red Pill concept that husbands should only seek sex when their wives genuinely desire it goes against the Scriptural command for husbands to drink from the well that is their wife’s body whenever they are thirsty and to satisfy themselves at all times with it (Proverbs 5:15-19).

And finally, I want to leave with a note about the Christian version of Red Pill. I was aware of the existence of the Christian variation of Red Pill before I started this series.  And I will admit I learned some new things about them while writing this series like the fact that some of them teach the need for husbands to take overt action by rebuking and correcting their wives.

But even among Christian Red Pill folks there is still much acceptance of game and appeal to a woman’s emotions and natural desire as the basis of sex in marriage.  A woman having sex with her husband when she does not genuinely desire it and just because it is her duty is still seen as wrong by some Christian Red Pill folks who still hold to this part of the secular Red Pill philosophy.

But the truth is that Red Pill started off as a secular philosophy and MGTOW and Christian Red Pill were later off-shoots of the original secular Red Pill.  This is why I have based this series on the secular version of Red Pill.

The Christian version of Red Pill may be much closer to the Bible and I don’t deny that there may be some additional truths in it.  But I simply maintain like other “traditionalist Christians” where Red Pill is right “that Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  And I prefer to use the Bible as a basis and framework from which I discuss intersexual dynamics rather than Red Pill.  I see knowledge of Red Pill being good in the sense of being able to help non-Christians by showing them Red Pill truths that are found in the Bible.  But we as Christians must also be cognizant of many unbiblical teachings in Red Pill as we have shown in this series.

Is the Red Pill Concept of Frame Biblical?

In the first part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical”, we have covered the Red Pill concepts of the male and female imperatives as well as the alpha/beta paradigm and the alpha mindset. In this 6th part of our series we will now discuss the Red Pill concept of frame.

In one his earliest blog posts on his blog “The Rational Male”, Rollo Tomassi writes the following in his article entitled “Frame”:

“In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy…

One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers

As we can see from Tomassi’s quote above, frame in the Red Pill world is the concept that in every relationship either the man is operating in the woman’s world view or she is operating in his.

Later in the same post he states Her genuine (unnegotiated) desire for you hinges upon you covertly establishing this narrative for her.   Basically, he is saying the man should bring the woman into his frame without her knowing he is trying to bring her into his frame.  Essentially Tomassi is calling on men to perform the Red Pill equivalent of Jedi mind tricks on women.   We will get more into this in the next post on the Red Pill concept of game.

According to Red Pill, if a man attempts to bring a woman into his frame (i.e. worldview) by overt or coercive measures he defeats the central focus of Red Pill ideology – to get a woman to have “genuine (unnegotiated)” sexual desire toward him.

Tomassi writes further in this post about the way most modern marriages go when he states the following:

“In most contemporary marriages and LTR arrangements, women tend to be the de facto authority. Men seek their wive’s “permission” to attempt even the most mundane activities they’d do without an afterthought while single. I have married friends tell me how ‘fortunate’ they are to be married to such an understanding wife that she’d “allow” him to watch hockey on their guest bedroom TV,…occasionally

What these men failed to realize is that frame, like power, abhors a vacuum.  In the absence of the frame security a woman naturally seeks from a masculine male, this security need forces her to provide that security for herself.”

And near the end of the post he states:

It is vital to the health of any LTR that a man establish his frame as the basis of their living together before any formal commitment is recognized. As I stated in the beginning, frame will be fluid and conditions will influence the balance, but the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you.”

Where Red Pill is Right in its Teachings About Frame

Red Pill is spot on that power hates a vacuum and so does a couple’s worldview.  If the man does not set the worldview in the relationship, then the woman will.  But the couple will either operate in the woman’s worldview or the man’s.  Anything illusions of a melded worldview are just that, illusions.

Red Pill is right that a man must establish his frame from the very beginning of any relationship.

The Bible would absolutely agree with Tomassi’s statement to men that “the overall theme of your relationship needs to be led and molded by you”.  God actually speaks of trying to mold his wife Israel in the Old Testament:

“O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 18:6 (KJV)

Where Red Pill is Wrong in its Teachings About Frame

Red Pill is absolutely wrong in its insistence on men using covert measures to bring women into their frame.  What Red Pill asks men to do with both frame and game is to engage in what the Bible calls “craftiness”.  I will talk more about the Biblical view of craftiness in my next article on the Red Pill concept of game.

The Bible tells men in Ephesians 5:25 that they are to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church” and in Revelation 3:19 we see how Christ loved his churches when he states “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.

Red Pill rejects the overt measures of rebuking and disciplining a woman that the Bible calls all husbands to. A Christian man should always speak plainly to any woman he is with about his worldview and what he expects of her before he will consider courting her for marriage.

I have a friend of mine whose son recently married. But before he married his wife, they had kind of a rocky dating relationship.  They actually broke up twice before getting back together a third time and then getting engaged and eventually married.

The reason they broke up is because his son was establishing his frame during the dating relationship, his Christian world view, including his belief in Biblical gender roles and the man being the head of the woman in all things.  If she would rebel against his leadership on any issue, he would send her away and wait for her to come back and repent.  Each time she attempted to take control of the frame or really the worldview under which their relationship would operate, he would remind her that as a couple they would operate in his worldview or they would not be a couple at all.

Red Pill is right that women deep down want men to establish the frame of their relationship. Some women will of course test the man’s resolve but eventually submit to his worldview.  But where Red Pill is wrong is that this is not true for all women. There are some women who will constantly battle to control the frame of their relationship with a man.  And some will not reveal their true intent to control the frame until after marriage.

From a Christian perspective we can explain this behavior in women as greater and lesser degrees of the corruption of their God given feminine natures.  Remember that God’s original design of woman was for her to submit to and serve man. In the context of this discussion of frame, God meant for women to operate within the frame of a man, first her father and then finally her husband.  But sin corrupted a woman’s nature (as it did man’s) and it still does today.

Going back to the young man who recently married.  He established his frame in a very overt way.  He made it plain to her what his expectations were of her.  She tested him several times and each time he sent her away.  Eventually she came back after learning that she could move his resolve on these things and she loved and respected him for standing his ground.  Now there are other women who would have left him and never returned.  Again, it all comes down to the level of corruption of the woman’s nature.

We have already mentioned this previously in this series but we must mention it again here.  Red Pill makes the entire point of a man’s life to covertly cause women to genuinely desire and want sex with him.  But that is not the point of a man’s life from a Biblical perspective.

God created man to image him and thereby bring him glory (1 Corinthians 11:7). A man’s powerful driving sexual desire is certainly a part of his God given nature and man displays certain aspects of God’s nature in his sexual desire for woman.  But man was created to image God in far more ways than just his sexual desire toward woman.

God created the woman for the man (1 Corinthians 11:9) so that man could image God as a husband in marriage and father to his children.  God says in 1 Timothy 3:4 that a man must be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”.

Conclusion

The Red Pill concept of frame, that a man must establish his worldview as the one he and any potential woman he marries will live in is a Biblical concept.  God says that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church and that women are to be subject to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:23-24).  He tells men that they are to love their wives as Christ loves his church and an essential part of Christ’s love for his church is his rebuking and disciplining of his church (Revelation 3:19).   The scriptures tell us of wives in 1 Corinthians 14:35 “if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home”.  The man is to set the worldview for the woman.  That is the plain teaching of the Bible.

However, the Bible and Red Pill part ways when it comes to the method for a man to establish frame in a relationship with a woman and the reason for his establishing frame in the first place.

Red Pill encourages men to use covert and subtle means to bring women into their frame while the Bible discourages craftiness for Christians (2 Corinthians 4:2).  The Bible tells us in Proverbs 27:5 “Open rebuke is better than secret love”.   Men should speak plainly and establish the parameters of their relationship early with potential wives.  And after marriage they should use instruction, rebuke and discipline to keep their wives within their frame (worldview).

Red Pill sees the entire reason for men trying to get women into their frame is to invoke “genuine (unnegotiated)” sexual desire toward them.  But as Christian men the only “LTR” we are authorized to enter into with a woman is marriage.  And our purpose for entering into marriage is more than getting a woman to genuinely desire us sexually.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with a man wanting a woman to genuinely sexually desire him.  God wants his people to genuinely desire him.  But a man who understands his purpose in God’s creation understands that his establishing of frame with a woman is not simply to get laid.

Marriage is about imaging or displaying the relationship between God and his people, between Christ and his Church. It is about a man demonstrating all the attributes of God with his life including his love for his people.  Some of those attributes include teaching, rebuking and disciplining one’s wife and children.  Other attributes include showing them grace, mercy and compassion as well as providing for them, sacrificing for them and protecting them.

So, should you as a man establish frame in a relationship with a woman you are looking at as a potential spouse? Certainly.   Should you continue to keep her in that frame when you are married? Absolutely.  Is it possible your woman will appreciate and even find your more sexually desirable for establishing frame with her? Yes.  But there are some women who will not respect you as a man trying to establish frame with them.  They will resist at every turn.  Others will pretend to be in your frame and only when you are married, they will attempt to take control of the frame of your relationship.

And as you set about to establish frame with a woman, you should do it using God’s methods, not Red Pill’s methods.  And you should never forget the overarching reason you are called by God to establish frame in your woman’s life in the first place.

Is the Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset Biblical?

In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Female Imperative and the Red Pill concept of hypergamy in women. We showed that aspect of the Feminine Imperative which prompts women to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God.    However just as man’s nature has been corrupted, so too woman’s nature as originally designed by God has been corrupted.  Hypergamy is a corruption of the feminine nature God designed.  This corruption causes women to lack true contentment with the men they are with. Hypergamy is always looking for the next best guy.

We talked about men doing careful vetting and looking for women who will recognize their own sinful natures, including their sinful hypergamous natures and are willing to fight it.  True faith, both on the part of a man and the woman he marries, gives a couple a better fighting chance of having a truly lifelong marriage together.

As part of our discussion of the Feminine Imperative, I discussed the Alpha Male Mindset.  I wanted to come back in this fifth part of this series on Red Pill to zero on this on concept to determine if any part of it is Biblical.

As a reminder of what we spoke about concerning the Alpha Male Mindset I want to restate what Tomassi said in his article “Mental Point of Origin” :

“Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.

I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it…

It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.

A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin…

Are you your mental point of origin?

Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?

When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?

Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?”

So, did you catch what Tomassi said in the beginning of these statements above? The time in his life when he got the most sex was when he made himself and his own desires his mental point of origin and he did not care what the women around him thought of his life choices.  They could come or go and it did not matter to him.  And he had women throwing themselves at him when had this mindset.

Is there some truth to this? Are women attracted to men who do not live to please them but rather to please themselves? Yes, many women are attracted to this.  Others are not.  Will a man probably “get laid” more if he has this mindset of not needing to please women and living only for what pleases him? Most likely yes.

And if the entire point of our male existence was to have sex with as many women as possible, i.e. the Red Pill male imperative, then Tomassi would have a point.  But from a Christian and Biblical perspective, getting more sex is not the only reason for our existence as men.  God created us for a greater purpose than this which we will discuss shortly.

But before we get to that purpose, we first need to discuss whether a woman should be a man’s mental point of origin or not.

Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill That A Woman Should Not Be A Man’s Mental Point of Origin?

Man’s first sin was in listening to his wife, seeking to please her over pleasing God or in Red Pill vernacular, making his wife his mental point of origin.  In the book of Genesis, we read the following:

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life”

Genesis 3:17 (KJV)

Job illustrates for us what Adam should have done when instead of listening to his wife’s sinful advice, he rebukes her instead:

“9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. 10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”

Job 2:9-10 (KJV)

A man who lives his life to please his wife is by very definition controlled by his wife.  And God says the man who pleases him will never allow himself to be controlled by a woman:

“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”

Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)

So yes, the Bible would agree 100% with Red Pill that men should never make women their mental point of origin.

Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill that Men Should Make Themselves Their Mental Point of Origin?

The Bible teaches us in 2 Corinthians 5:15 “that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”.  In other words, as Christians, we should not live for ourselves, but rather we should live for Christ.

Christ, not you, should be your mental point of origin.

The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:5 that we should be “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”.

With every decision we as men make, we should not be asking whether this would please the woman we are with, but rather we should be asking “Would this decision be pleasing to Christ?”

Christ Made His Mission His Mental Point of Origin and So Should We as Men

But it is one thing to say Christ should be our mental point of origin and an entirely different thing to understand what that actually means.  Many Christian teachers today teach that living for Christ means living to please others.  They teach that Christians should never seek what pleases themselves, but only do what pleases others.

They appeal to Biblical passages like the one below to bolster their position:

“25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

Matthew 20:25-27 (KJV)

The sad reality is that a great number of Christian teachers have used the statement above from Jesus Christ to cancel out what the rest of the Scriptures say and to create an entire generation of Christian beta men who live to please women and they think by doing so they are pleasing Christ.  Such a concept is a complete bastardization of the Biblical concept of servant leadership that Christ was trying to teach us.

The passage below gives us a greater understanding of what Christ was saying in the Gospels:

“3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.  4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”

Philippians 2:3-10 (KJV)

Now let’s zoom in on two key statements in the passage above.  The first one is found in verse 4:

“Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

The statement above gives us the clearest Biblical definition of selfishness in the Bible.   Selfishness is not when a man seeks to meet his own needs or desires, but rather it is when a man ONLY seeks to meet his own needs or desires and never considers the needs and desires of those around him.

The next key statement we are going to look at from the passage above is found in verse 8:

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

The focus of Christ’s life was the mission he came into the world to complete.  His mission was to die on the cross for the sins of mankind.  In John 3:17 we read “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” and in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we read “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”.

Christ knew why he was born into this world.  His mission was the continuous focal point of his life while he walked this earth.  We as Christian men need to follow his example by making our mission the focal point of our lives.  In other words, making our mission from God our mental point of origin is making Christ our mental point of origin.

What is Our Mission from God as Men?

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”.  Our mission in life as men is to image God and thereby bring him glory.  Imaging God means us as men living out his attributes.

Man images God in is daily work by being the best in his business that he can be.   In John 5:17 we read “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” and in Psalm 104:23 the Bible states “Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening”.

The Bible encourages men to be diligent in their business and to make it the best it can be in Proverbs 22:29 when it states “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men”.  And in Proverbs 12:24 the Bible states “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute”.

But a man cannot fully image God and thereby fulfill his purpose for being created without also being a husband and father.  In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” and in Ephesians 5:25-26 the Bible states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word”.

Men image God in the lives of their wives by leading them and washing them with the Word of God.  They also image God in the lives of their wives by providing for and protecting their wives as they would their own bodies as Ephesians 5:29 states.

Men image God in the lives of their children by providing for them (Matthew 7:9-11) as well as teaching and discipling them (Hebrews 12:6-10).

Where Does a Man’s Desire for Sex Fit into His Life’s Mission?

As we have previously shown in this series, Red Pill teaches that the male imperative, or man’s mission, is to sow his seed as often as possible with as many women as possible.  In other words, have sex as often as possible.   So, the question is, does having sex play any part in the mission God has given to us as men? The answer is yes.

While sex certainly is not the entirety of our mission from God, it does play a vital role in that mission. In Genesis 1:28 it is implied that God wanted men to have sex as part of his command to “Be fruitful, and multiply”.

But the sad truth is many church theologians over the last two thousand years have taught a falsehood regarding sexual relations between a man and woman that its primary purpose is for the continuation of the human species.  In more recent years Red Pill has essentially taken the same position from a naturalistic and evolutionary perspective.

The Bible however, stands apart from both Red Pill and historic church teachings regarding the primary purpose of sex.  The Bible does not say the primary purpose which God made sex was reproduction neither does it tell men only to have sex with their wives to have children.

But rather in Proverbs 5:19 it tells a man to let his wife’s “breasts satisfy” him “at all times” and to be “ravished” or “intoxicated” with her.   God has created a sexual thirst in man for woman that is so strong that he compares it to the human need for water in Proverbs 5:15 and he calls a man’s wife his “well” from which he encouraged to liberally drink.   In Romans 1:27 sex is called “the natural use of the woman”.  And while the Scriptures command men not to deny their wives sexually, the Bible never refers to sex as “the natural use of the man”.

All of this Biblical language encouraging men to satisfy themselves with and use their wife’s body for their sexual pleasure makes sense in light of 1 Corinthians 11:9 which states “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.

According to the Bible, everything about a woman, both psychologically and physiologically, was created for man.  That means a woman’s psychological desire for sex, her breasts, her nipples, her vagina, her clitoris, all her erogenous zones and her ability to experience sexual pleasure from all these areas was created for man.  Does that mean we are saying God only created woman for man’s sexual pleasure or that he only created sex for sexual pleasure? Of course not.  But it was a primary reason and now we will explain why.

Why would God create make sex so extremely pleasurable and make man’s desire for it so strong? The reason is so that man could image God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people.  In what is widely considered a prophecy of Christ and his Church Psalms 45:11 states “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”.  And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

When we remember that man’s primary purpose is to image God and we see that God as a husband to his bride desires her beauty and desires to take pleasure in her we now understand why God designed man designed man to receive sexual pleasure from the beauty and body of a woman.   This is why we can rightly say that seeking out sexual relations with a woman is part of God’s mission for man.

Conclusion

Red Pill is absolutely right that a woman should never be a man’s mental point of origin.  But Red Pill is absolutely wrong that a man should make himself his mental point of origin.  Instead as Christian men we must make Christ our mental point of origin.  What would Christ have us do in a given situation? What would Christ have us do with our lives? These are questions we should be asking ourselves on a daily basis.

Making Christ our mental point of origin is synonymous with making the mission God has given us as men our mental point of origin.   And the mission of man, the purpose for which he was created, is to image God with his life.

Unless a man has the gift of celibacy so that he “may attend upon the Lord without distraction” (1 Corinthians 7:35) then a man is called to image God in his life not only by working and making his mark on the world but also in being a husband and a father.  Man’s strong sexual desire for woman images God’s desire for the beauty of his people and to take pleasure in his people.

When a man applies this truth to both his daily decisions and long-term decisions, he will inevitably at times hurt the feelings of or disappoint those around him whether it be his parents, his church friends, his girlfriend,  his work friends, his boss at work and sometimes even his wife and children.  Ultimately though a Christian man whose life is centered on his mission from God is only concerned with not disappointing one person and that person is God.

And one final note on selfishness.   Earlier we showed that the Bible defines selfishness in Philippians 2:4 when it states “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others”.  A man needs to remember it is NOT selfish of him to look his own needs or even desires, but rather it is selfish of him to look to his own needs and desire and never consider the needs and desires around him.

It is not selfish for a man to devote the majority of his waking life to his career and or ministry.  God created men to make their mark on the world in this way.  It is also not selfish for a man to desire sexual relations with his wife more often than she desires sexual relations with him and it is not selfish of him to have sexual relations with his wife when she is not in the mood.  When a man has sex with his wife when he so desires, he is fulfilling God’s command for him to satisfy himself “at all times” with his wife’s body.

Now if his wife has a legitimate medical condition a man should protect his wife’s body as he would his own and therefore forgo relations during that time.  A prime example would be just after a woman has a had a child or after she has had surgery.  But whether it be in the arena of his career, when to have sexual relations, financial decisions or discipline of the children if a man centers these decisions around his wife’s feelings, he is failing the mission that God has given him.

Does this mean it is wrong to ever consider a woman’s feelings? Of course not.  As long as man is not centering his life on what the reaction his wife might have and always trying to please her a man can find ways to be kind, compassionate and generous with his wife and at the same time not compromise his primary mission to image God with his life.

Is the Red Pill Concept of the Female Imperative Biblical?

In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative and how it is Biblical in presenting sex as driving need for men and that men being polygynous in their sexual natures matches with God’s design of the masculine nature.  We showed however that Red Pill, because of its naturalistic world view, fails to see that sex is only part of a much larger masculine imperative that God intended for man when he designed him.

In this fourth part of our series, we will discuss the Red Pill concept of the Feminine Imperative and answer the question of whether any part of it is Biblical or not.

In order to discuss the Feminine Imperative we must first discuss the Red Pill paradigm of Alpha and Beta males which is at the core of the Feminine Imperative.  “Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks” is common way that the manosphere refers to two classes of men. There is also a well known “80/20 Rule” in relation to Alpha and Beta males meaning that 80 percent of males are Beta and 20 percent are Alpha.   Tomassi states in “Transactional vs Validational Sex”  that “Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need”.

In his article entitled “Alpha”, Tomassi defines Alpha when he writes [ https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/20/alpha/  ] – “Alpha is mindset, not a demographic. Alpha is as Alpha does, it isn’t what we say it is”.  And in “The New Polyandry” [ https://therationalmale.com/2018/12/10/the-new-polyandry/ ]  he writes  “‘Broke men don’t get women‘,…unless they’re hot broke men”.

The point is a man being Alpha has nothing to do with how much money he has, but rather it is primarily based upon his mindset and then only secondarily upon his looks.  Together this is what makes a man “hot” to a woman.

The Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset

Tomassi defines the Alpha Mindset in his article “Mental Point of Origin”:

“Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.

I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it…

It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.

A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin…

And in then in this same article Tomassi asks a few questions that help men to see if they are their own “mental point of origin”, i.e. living in an Alpha mindset.

“Are you your mental point of origin?

Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?

When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?

Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?”

So, according to Red Pill, If you as a man make your life decisions regarding your career, your hobbies, your relationships or other decisions without seeking to please others whether they be men or women then you have an Alpha mindset. In my next article in this series I will be discussing whether any part of the Red Pill Alpha mindset is Biblical.

The Red Pill Beta Male Mindset

The beta male mindset according to Red Pill is the polar opposite of the alpha male mindset.  Unlike the alpha male who needs no approval for his life decisions, beta males crave the approval of others, especially the women around them.

Specifically, when it comes to women, beta males put women on a pedestal and adopt the “Happy Wife/Happy Life” mentality.   Tomassi describes the beta mindset or “beta game” in his article “Our Sister’s Keeper”:

“for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.”

Why Do Women Marry Beta Men?

So, if women are primarily aroused by the alpha male mindset then why do we see women so often marrying Beta men? The answer to this is found in Tomassi’s article entitled “Transactional vs Validational Sex”:

“As most of my readers know, Hypergamy – women’s dualistic sexual strategy (and really life strategy) – is much more than a tendency of a woman to ‘marry up’. In Hormonal the ideas of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks really solidify with the research.

However, as useful as it is as a catchy euphemism Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need. In a woman’s peak ovulatory phase of her menstrual cycle she enters an estrus state and becomes subject to behaviors that can only be defined as a pretext of seeking Alpha seed…

While women are subject to an estrus state they still require the second half of Hypergamy – the Beta need for security, provisioning, protection, comfort and at least the sharing of parental investment responsibilities for any offspring…

It may be true that women have never been better provided for in history as far as money and opportunities go, but women still look for emotional security, protection, dominance and comfort in men as part of their innate mental firmware.”

What Tomassi is saying is that women have duel and competing concerns when it comes to choosing a man.  The have the Alpha arousal side but they also have the Beta needs side for security, provisioning, protection and comfort.   Optimally women would like to have both sides of this equation met but few women can find a man that meets both the Alpha arousal and Beta provisioning desires that they have.   So long story short, many women compromise on the Beta provisioning side because of the “80/20 Rule” that only 20 percent of men are Alphas and 80 percent of men are Betas.

In “The New Polyandry”, Tomassi writes:

“Monogamy is a social norm, if not an evolutionary norm. A lot has been written about how monogamy in its present incarnation – one man, one woman – is really the result of a post-agrarian social order that optimized the sexual strategy of Beta men. In essence socially-enforced monogamy serves the largest population of Beta males.

However, the tradeoff for women was long term provisioning, protection (in as far as the man was capable) and parental investment – all thing conducive to sustainable futures for women and their children. All that was expected of women was a compromise on the Alpha arousal side of Hypergamy. And naturally, Alpha men and most women found ways to circumvent this socio-sexual adaptation that benefitted women in spite of Beta men.

Monogamy serves Beta men. Alpha men still get sex, broke or not.”

And again in “Transactional vs Validational Sex” he writes about how the vast majority of women married to men whom they consider Beta husbands have sex with their husbands simply as a reward to control their behavior:

“For most men (i.e the 80% Beta men) transactional sex is where the rubber meets the road. In fact, I’d argue that for most Beta men transactional sex is the only definition of sex they ever really know…

Marriage today is almost entirely predicated on the transactional sex side of Hypergamy. I’m not saying it has to be, nor am I saying it always is, but I’m fairly comfortable in speculating that for most married women sex is reward she uses in the operant conditioning of her husband

one thing we’ve all seen a lot of from young and old Blue Pill Beta men is this logical tendency for them to want to ‘sacrifice their way to happiness with their wives’. It’s as if the more they sacrifice the more they pay for that intimacy they seek, but what they never get is that this only buries their sex lives that much more.”

So why do so many women marry Beta men according to Red Pill? Because there are far fewer Alpha men, polygamy is not accepted by society, and a Beta male that can be a provider,  a protector and a father to their children is better than having no man at all.  And being married to a Beta male that they are not aroused by has one added benefit they would not have being married to an Alpha male. They can control the Beta man using sex as a reward.

In other words, according the Red Pill, the vast majority of women are settling for less than the man they would like to marry.

Hypergamy and the Feminine Imperative

According to Red Pill, a man’s sexual strategy is “quantity over quality” .  This means a man is driven to have sex as often as possible and ideally with as many women as possible, thus men are far less picky about how sex occurs and who it occurs with.

Women on the other hand have an opposite “quality over quantity” sexual strategy.  They are more concerned with the quality of the man in addition to his ability to provide for her, protect her and be a father to her offspring.

Women instinctively and naturally desire the Alpha “seed”, they desire sex with men who not only exhibit, but truly live the Alpha mindset.   And if a man has the Alpha mindset along with the Beta provisioning and security a woman’s desires this makes for a “a good Hypergamous pairing” and Tomassi states “A woman in a good Hypergamous pairing accepts – desires – his authority, but also his genes. She doesn’t just want children, she wants his children”.

It is this dualistic sexual strategy in women’s “mental firmware”, the desire for Alpha seed but also the Beta needs for provisioning and security forms the core of the Feminine Imperative.  Hypergamy is what prompts women to meet their dualistic sexual strategy by an means necessary.

Feminine Hypergamy is the reason you might see a 25-year-old woman marry a wealthy 50-year-old man.  It is also the reason that the same 50-year-old man might come home to find his wife in bed with their pool boy.

Tomassi writes the following about hypergamy in “Relational Equity” :

“That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.”

And in “Christian Dread”  Tomassi writes:

Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy. I understand that in the past religion was used as a control on Hypergamy, especially in respect to men’s burden of performance and the necessity of their provisioning to women.”

Is the Feminine Imperative Biblical?

The Bible teaches us that God made men and women to bring him glory in different ways.   In 1 Corinthians 11:7 we read “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”.  Man was created with the primary purpose of imaging or displaying God’s attributes.  God is a leader, a worker, a husband and a father among many other things.  And in order for man to image God as a husband and father God created woman and by extension marriage.

The Bible states in Ephesians 5:24 “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing and in Ephesians 5:29 we read “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”.  This teaches us that God wanted women to submit to the authority of their husbands and to be provided for and protected by their husbands.

So, we can rightly say that the part of a woman’s “mental firmware” or “hardwiring” that seeks a confident man to lead her, provide for her and protect her is by the very design of God and it is in fact Biblical.

But just as sin corrupted man’s God given masculine nature in many ways so too woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin as well.

Sin corrupts and twists a woman’s God given desire for male leadership, provision and protection and makes her discontent with her husband always wanting more.   This discontentment destroys a woman’s love and devotion to her husband and it is this discontentment that is the root cause of women having affairs and/or divorcing their husbands looking for the next best guy.

In the 7th commandment found in Exodus 20:14 we read “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and in Romans 7:2-3 we read “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth… So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress”.   These are direct condemnations of the end result of Feminine Hypergamy.

Contrary to Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” the Bible teaches us that true faith in Christ can absolutely be an insulation against Hypergamy (women being sinfully discontent with their husbands) and the other sins of this world:

“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”

Philippians 4:13 (KJV)

“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

1 John 5:4 (KJV)

The topics of the sanctity of marriage and exhortations to contentment are mentioned side by side in the book of Hebrews:

“4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Hebrews 13:4-5 (KJV)

When women are covetous of other’s women’s husband’s or they simply allow themselves to grow discontented with their husbands for various reasons this threatens the sanctity of their marriage covenant.

Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” is also wrong not just from a Biblical perspective, but even from a divorce rate perspective.

Focus on the Family did a closer look at the common claim that divorce rates are as high for those in the church as those outside the church in an article entitled “Divorce Rate in the Church – As High as the World?” .  In that article they state some interesting studies which show committed Christians that regularly attend church have lower divorce rates than the average population:

“Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.Bradley R.E. Wright, Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010), p. 133

Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that “active conservative Protestants” who regularly attend church have are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Williamson, “The Cultural Contradictions of Mainline Family Ideology and Practice,” in American Religions and the Family, edited by Don S. Browning and David A. Clairmont (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007) p. 50

Professor Scott Stanley from the University of Denver, working with an absolute all-star team of leading sociologists on the Oklahoma Marriage Study, explains that couples with a vibrant religious faith had more and higher levels of the qualities couples need to avoid divorce.

Whether young or old, male or female, low-income or not, those who said that they were more religious reported higher average levels of commitment to their partners, higher levels of marital satisfaction, less thinking and talking about divorce and lower levels of negative interaction. These patterns held true when controlling for such important variables as income, education, and age at first marriage.

The divorce rates of Christian believers are not identical to the general population – not even close. Being a committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.

Saying you believe something or merely belonging to a church, unsurprisingly, does little for marriage. But the more you are involved in the actual practice of your faith in real ways – through submitting yourself to a serious body of believers, learning regularly from scripture, being in communion with God though prayer individually and with your spouse and children, and having friends and family around us who challenge us to take our marriage’s seriously – the greater difference this makes in strengthening both the quality and longevity of our marriages. Faith does matter and the leading sociologists of family and religion tell us so.”

True Faith in Christ, contentment with one’s marriage and keeping one’s family in church on a regular basis are in fact great insulators against Hypergamy.

Does that mean its guaranteed? Of course not.  But it gives a marriage a far better chance of success.

Conclusion

The Feminine Imperative to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God.

But Red Pill because it is a naturalistic philosophy sees the hypergamous aspect of the Feminine Imperative, her always looking for the next best guy, as simply a part of evolution’s plan to give women the best quality children with the best provision and protection possible.

But as Bible believing Christians, we know that that the hypergamous part of the feminine nature, always looking for the next best guy and never truly being content with the man she is with, is actually a corruption of the feminine nature by sin.

God condemned feminine hypergamy in the 7th commandment and saw it as such a threat to society that he allowed the death penalty for it in the following passage:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

Even short of the death penalty, women had a strong motivator to keep their hypergamous natures in check and keep would-be Alpha seeders at bay.  If their husband divorced them and sent them away, they would lose their children to him and leave with nothing but the clothes on their back, no split assets, no alimony and no child support.

The sad truth is that because of changes brought on by feminism since the mid-19th century, all of these controls and checks against feminine hypergamy have been removed.  Our society has actually been restructured to support feminine hypergamy.

Womens’ discontentment with men which is at the heart of feminine hypergamy is encouraged by our society.  And our society actually rewards adulterous women with child custody, alimony, child support and split assets in the event of divorce.

A society which has no controls for keeping feminine hypergamy in check will eventually collapse.  Why? Because without controls on feminine hypergamy marriage and the family unit have no security or stability.  And when marriage and the family unit collapse society will follow.

We are already seeing the beginnings of this collapse of Western civilization with the growth of the Manosphere, Red Pill and the MGTOW movement.  Many men in Western nations no longer see marriage as a blessing, but as threat to their lives and their emotional and financial wellbeing.

But what I have said many times on this blog I will say again now.

Guys I get it.  Before the mid-19th century men had about a 97% chance that their marriage would be secure and truly be “until death do us part”.  And even in the event of divorce, men did not loose their children or become financially destitute as a result like they do today.

If you are a non-Christian or fair-weather Christian who is not committed to your faith or one that does not regularly attend church you have roughly a 50 percent chance of divorce.  If you are committed to your Christian faith, regularly attend church and find a woman of like mindset and background you can reduce that chance to less than 40 percent.  But even in the best-case scenario, you still have about a 40 percent chance of being emotionally and financially devastated in the event of a divorce.

But let’s flip that around.   That means you have a 50 to 60 percent of chance of staying married to the same woman, raising your children with her and spending your sunset years together.

Let me put that chance of success in perspective.  Do you realize that only 30 percent of small businesses make it past 10 years before failing? That means you have twice the chance of your marriage succeeding as you would a small business if you started one.

Men your created purpose was not just to survive and avoid any potential harm to your emotional, physical and financial wellbeing.  God created you as men to image him and thereby bring him glory.  And you cannot fulfill that purpose without being a husband and father.  God’s rule for both men and women as found in Genesis 1:28 is to “Be fruitful, and multiply” which means men and women are to seek marriage, and after being married have sex and have children.  God’s exception to this rule is celibacy for undivided service to him for those few whom he gives this special gift to.  God says in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that “it is better to marry than to burn”.

Risk is part of life gentlemen.  And God created us as men to be risk takers, it is part of our built-in masculine nature.  But just as when a man starts a small business, he must do careful planning and vetting, so too a man should do careful planning and then vetting of any woman he looks at as a potential future wife.

And a final word to the Christian women reading this. While both men and women can struggle with the sin of discontentment this sin seems to affect women far more often than it does men in marriage.  It is not hard for most men to be content in their marriages to their wives despite things they wish were better.  But for women it is the exact opposite.  The vast majority of women struggle with the sin of discontentment with their husbands.   And this is why once the societal controls on hypergamy were removed we saw divorce sky rocket with women now filing for 70 percent of divorces.

Christian women – keep your feminine hypergamy in check by daily asking the Lord to give you a spirit of contentment with your husband.

“Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Hebrews 13:5 (KJV)

Does the Bible Allow for Premarital Sex and Prostitution?

There are a lot of discussions in various online Christian forums, articles and blogs where some Christians are proposing that the traditional Christian view that sexual relations are strictly reserved for a man and woman in the covenant of marriage is not supported by the Bible.

Specifically, these people assert that the Bible only condemns adultery and engaging in sex with cult prostitutes.  They propose that this means that all other forms of consensual sex between a man and woman whether they are married or not is not a sin before God.  They even state that sex with prostitutes is acceptable before God as long as those prostitutes are not cult prostitutes.

What follows are some excerpts from a few emails I have recently received from a man who takes this position.

The Bible Only Condemns Adultery and Cult Prostitution?

 “Regarding premarital sex.  I have probably searched this the most because I feel there are just so many different arguments concerning it and it can leave many confused.  I still do not see, even a yearly animal sacrifice for people engaging in sex before marriage.  Now before I continue, I strongly believe God wants sex in marriage because that’s His ideal, and it avoids complications, like a child not having a father one day, since marriage ensures that child will have a father for instance.

And also, I do not promote the idea of casual sex at all, because that leads to addiction, possible abortion and health risks, not to mention spiritual degradation because of those things too, such as addiction.

But nowhere do I see that premarital sex is a sin. 

I suppose that Hebrews 13:4 could also be used when it says the marriage bed is to be kept pure.  And I see you used the word “whoremonger” to refer to premarital sex in one of your topics.  However, the original word for whoremonger meant “male prostitute”, not premarital sex.  It just seems that these verses are discussing marriage related issues concerning adultery, not premarital sex.

Yes, if a man steals a father’s right, then it’s wrong, but only if he doesn’t pay the dowry – that is theft.  And the consequence to me it seems is that the two must marry.  And in most of the cases, I see that God commands marriage after premarital sex has taken place, again, because it is the ideal, and it guards against many problems.  But say you have a widow or a woman who is no longer a virgin, who supports herself etc and she consents to sex with a man.  I do not see any punishment attached here but only to stern warnings against it because it leads to sin possibly (addiction, abortion, defrauding).  And in this case, I’m talking about the two people who are in love and are progressing to marriage, in other words, they are not casually having sex, but they don’t yet have the means to get married (finances, work contracts, etc that hold them back a bit).  I do not find this being wrong, it’s just not ideal.

On the subject of prostitution, I do genuinely believe that there is a big difference between cult prostitution and normal prostitution, and that Paul and many others guard against only the former, because the former is regarded as sin because of the idolatry and possible adultery that is attached.

And normal prostitution with a married woman is also strictly a sin, because of adultery.  But, if the woman is living alone, she is single, she supports herself, and men have sex with her, I do not see this being condemned as sin.  And Solomon also did not sentence the two prostitutes to death who went to him with the issue of the child.  I don’t remember any instances where Sampson was punished, even I don’t remember any sacrifice made for sleeping with a prostitute.  And Tamar was called righteous for disguising herself as a prostitute to bear a child, be it out of wedlock.  Now again, I’m not advocating for prostitution, especially not in this day and age where women can support themselves healthily.  And there is too much risk in visiting a prostitute.

But what I am concerned with, is calling something a sin when it is not, and vice-versa.  Under this, I do want to also ask concerning casual sex: say for instance, two people who are single, they are supporting themselves, meet to have consensual sex as a means of release and they separate or rarely see each other… Thus, they are not addicted, they practice it safely and they know they are not getting any diseases.  Is this then a sin, even though very very unwise?  The same can be asked of a man who uses a prostitute every now and then.  And said prostitute may be desolate, putting bread on the table because she can’t otherwise.

Another note on the cult prostitution.  I have not just looked at the usual facts such as Strabo’s claims, and I have not just looked at word translations, but historical context as well, as context often defines a word.  What is interesting to note is that in Corinth, though there were no longer official Aphrodite prostitutes in Paul’s time, the prostitutes there were still considered “unofficial temple prostitutes to Aphrodite”.  Rome was also known for its own versions of idolatrous prostitutes and also taxed those institutions (they were regulated).

If you can show me from the Scriptures where I am wrong on this, I am open to it.  I just don’t see where I am wrong based on my studies both of the Bible, the words of the original language and the historical context in which they were written.

Ben”

A Faulty Interpretation of Hebrews 13:4

In Hebrews 13:4 the Bible states “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge”.  The word “whoremongers” in the KJV is a translation of the Greek word Pornos.

This is Strong’s Lexicon Definition of Pornos:

1) a man who prostitutes his body to another’ s lust for hire

2) a male prostitute

3) a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

Part of Speech: noun masculine

Relation: from pernemi (to sell)

In the KJV this word is translated as ‘whoremonger’ five times and then as ‘fornicator’ another five times.

Those Christians online and elsewhere that take Ben’s position emphasize the first two parts of the definition referring to male prostitutes and also the root of the word which comes from pernemi which means “to sell”.

They use this to make their case that Pornos strictly refers to male prostitutes and has nothing to do with people having sex outside of marriage.  Some will even explain the third part of Strong’s definition as referring strictly to adultery. They go further in stating that pornos during the time the Bible was written referred more specifically to temple prostitutes and not prostitutes in general.

And there we have their case made from Hebrews 13:4 – that God was only condemning people having sex with cult prostitutes and married persons committing adultery.

The Case Against the “Cult Prostitutes Only” Interpretation of Hebrews 13:4

But there is a flaw, a single thread that can be pulled from their interpretation that causes their interpretation to fall completely apart.  While it is important for us to understand the historical context of words as they were used in the Greek language when the New Testament was written, we must also understand that the New Testament expands upon Greek words and uses them in spiritual ways that they had not been used before.

The Greek Word Ekklesia in its common usage referred to a called-out assembly of citizens of a local town. But Christ and his Apostles greatly expanded the meaning of Ekklesia and used it to refer to the Church collectively as well as to local bodies of believers.

The Greek word Moichao in its common usage referred to having unlawful sex with another man’s wife.  However, in Mark 10:11 Christ used Moichao not to refer a man having unlawful sex with another man’s wife, but rather he used it to a refer to man divorcing his wife for unjust reasons.  The people who heard him say this would have been astounded at his expanded definition of Moichao.

In the same way Greek word Pornos in its common usage may have referred to male prostitutes but the Bible uses this word to refer to a person engaging in any form of sexual immorality and not strictly male prostitution or cult prostitution.

In I Corinthians 5:1 the Bible states:

“It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife”.

The situation being described is most likely referring to a man having sex not with his actual mother, but rather with another of his father’s wives similar to what Reuben did with his father’s wife Bilhah who was not his biological mother in Genesis 35:22.

Now I will need you to “follow the bouncing ball” so to speak. The English word “fornication” in 1 Corinthians 5:1 is a translation of the Greek word Porneia.

Below is the Strong’s Lexicon Definition of Porneia:

1) illicit sexual intercourse

1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.

1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18

1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mark 10:11,Mark 10:12

2) metaphorically the worship of idols

2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

The root of Porneia comes from Porneuo,

Below is the Strong’s Lexicon Definition of Porneuo:

1) to prostitute one’ s body to the lust of another

2) to give one’ s self to unlawful sexual intercourse

2a) to commit fornication

3) metaphorically to be given to idolatry, to worship idols

3a) to permit one’ s self to be drawn away by another into idolatry

Part of Speech: verb

And the root of Porneuo is Porne.

Below is the Strong’s Lexicon Definition of Porne:

1) a woman who sells her body for sexual uses

1a) a prostitute, a harlot, one who yields herself to defilement for the sake of gain

1b) any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust

2) metaphorically an idolatress

2a) of “Babylon,” i.e. Rome, the chief seat of idolatry

Part of Speech: noun feminine

Porne is the feminine equivalent of the masculine noun Pornos.

Porneia and Porneuo all have at their root acts related to female prostitution and yet even Strong’s Lexicon is forced to give a much more expanded definition of Porne (female prostitutes) than it did for Pornos (male prostitutes).

So, what have we shown so far? The Bible uses a word that at its root refers to female prostitution to refer to a man having sex with his father’s wife which has nothing to whatsoever to do with prostitution.  The only thing incest and prostitution have in common is that they are both forms of sexual immorality.

But then later in this same passage condemning the incestuous actions of this man with his father’s wife Paul writes the following in verses 9-13:

“9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.”

Guess what Greek Word the Apostle Paul connects to the incestuous actions of this man with his father’s wife? It is Pornos.  So, in one passage Paul connects Porneia which at its root is Porne, a reference to female prostitutes, with Pornos which at its root referred to Male prostitutes to a man having sex with his father’s wife, an action that has nothing to do with prostitution.

This means we can rightly say that the Bible uses Porneia to refer to all forms of sexual immorality, and it also uses pornos to refer to people who commit sexual immorality, not just male prostitutes.

This pulls the thread on the entire argument of those who say the Bible is only condemning cult prostitution.

So, when the Bible uses the words pornos and porne it is far more inclusive than just male and female prostitutes.   It uses pornos to refer to all people who commit sexually immoral acts and it uses porne to refer to women who commit sexually immoral acts.  Only in the most specific of contexts does porne refer only to a female prostitute as it is used to refer to Rahab the harlot in James 2:25 where it states “Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot [Greek Porne] justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”.

This means it is possible that 1 Corinthians 6:15-18 refers not just to prostitutes (harlots) but also to loose and whorish women who have sex outside of marriage from a position of lust rather than just for money:

“15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.“

But having said all that, the Bible’s condemnation of porneia would absolutely include a condemnation of all forms of prostitution, not just cult prostitution which is asserted by Ben and other Christians online and elsewhere.

Marriage is the Answer to Avoiding Fornication

If sex outside of marriage is not a sin, and if porneia only referred to engaging in sex with cult prostitutes the following passage of the Bible would make no sense:

“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication [Greek Porneia], let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

1 Corinthians 7:2 (KJV)

If having sex with one’s girl friend or with prostitutes is ok as long as those prostitutes are not temple prostitutes for false gods then marriage would not be the only answer to avoiding fornication. But this is the answer the Bible gives us.

A Woman’s Body is Not Hers to Give

Ben’s Statement

“Yes, if a man steals a father’s right, then it’s wrong, but only if he doesn’t pay the dowry – that is theft.  And the consequence to me it seems is that the two must marry.  And in most of the cases, I see that God commands marriage after premarital sex has taken place, again, because it is the ideal, and it guards against many problems.”

Let’s look at the Scripture passage Ben alludes to:

“16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

So yes, it is clear that that a man enticing another man’s daughter into having sex was indeed a property crime and restitution had to be made to the father.  The restitution was that the man had to marry the virgin he seduced into having sex and also pay her father the bride price which was about half a year’s wages for the average man.

However, there is a big detail in this that is being overlooked.  The father could refuse to give his daughter to the man who seduced his daughter while still collecting the bride price as a penalty.  Why did God not require the father to give his daughter in marriage to the man that seduced her? Because she was his to give.

Both the daughter and the man who seduced her engaged in an act of theft against the father.  She gave something that was not hers to give and he took something that was not his to take.  And theft is a violation of the 8th commandment found in Exodus 20:15 which states “Thou shalt not steal”.  Therefore, a man enticing a man’s virgin daughter into having premarital sex is a sin against God based on the fact that is an act of theft against her father.

Even so, the father is only God’s steward of his daughter to prepare for her future her husband.

God Does Not Allow A Man to Take a Woman Except as Her Rightful Husband

Ben’s Statement:

“But say you have a widow or a woman who is no longer a virgin, who supports herself etc and she consents to sex with a man.”

God does not allow a woman, even one without a father, to have sex with a man that has not become her husband.  Even in the extreme case of a man taking a woman as a prisoner of war, he had to become her husband to have sex with her (Deuteronomy 21:13).

Tamar Was Not Righteous for Playing the Harlot

Ben’s Statement:

“Tamar was called righteous for disguising herself as a prostitute to bear a child, be it out of wedlock.”

In Genesis chapter 38, Tamar was not called righteous for prostituting herself with her father-in-law, but rather she was called “more righteous” than Judah because his sin of not giving her his son as husband put her in a position to be tempted to act sinfully in order to produce an heir.  Both Judah and Tamar sinned and this is shown in Genesis 38:26 when it states of Judah “And he knew her again no more” a clear reference to an act of repentance on his part.

Conclusion

Not every action of Biblical characters was right before God.  Samson’s laying with prostitutes was sinful as was Judah’s seeking of a prostitute and his daughter-in-law playing the prostitute.   Some like Ben argue that if a they don’t see a condemnation right alongside a Biblical character’s action that this means their actions were righteous before God.

But this is not the case at all. God told men to seek sex within the covenant of marriage and not to go after strange women in Proverbs 5.  In Proverbs 5:22 God calls men having sex with strange women who are not their wives’ a sin that can destroy a man’s life. Hebrews 13:4 tells us that that only sexual relations that God considers honorable and pure is that which occurs in the marriage bed.  And Christ told us in Matthew 19:4-6 that God “made them male and female” and he made the male and female to come together as “one flesh” in marriage.

The whoremongering that God says he will judge in Hebrews 13:4 refers to all sexually immoral behavior, not just male prostitution.  This is proven beyond doubt when the Apostle Paul uses the same word to refer the incestuous actions of a man with his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians 5.

Sexual purity is not simply “God’s ideal” while he accepts that people will have sex before marriage or with prostitutes.   Sexual purity is God’s rule for which he makes absolutely NO exceptions.  And the reason our sexual purity is so important to God is because it represents the faithfulness of God’s people to himself.

“For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

2 Corinthians 11:2 (KJV)

 

 

That Might Work for You, But Not My Marriage

“BGR, (my wife and I refer to you as Bigger Guy, phonetically pronounced), Just a word of encouragement, we decided over a year ago to switch the dynamic of our marriage to a more Biblical approach. Your blog has inspired a lot of the changes that we have implemented. We were “happily married partners” for many years. Since the change, our marriage has grown and flourished like never before.

I lead a men’s ministry at our church and have been trying to slowly introduce this way of thinking into my curriculum. (Biblical way of thinking I might add.) I have had many great comments about it but I have had one comment that left me dumbfounded. “That might work for you, but not my marriage.” So, God’s way isn’t the right way? We (I mean Bible believing churches) have swallowed the world and Satan’s lies about equality to the point of reading the Bible and ignoring it. Especially Titus 2.

Long and short, you are doing a great job. Thank you. We who believe as you have a long uphill battle before us. But we should not grow weary in doing good.”

What you just read was a recent comment I received from a man calling himself “AscendedHusband”.

First of all, I just want to say thank you to AscendedHusband for your prayers and your encouragement.  I can truly say that when I receive these kinds of comments and emails God is using people like yourself to pour courage into me to continue to preach the word in a time when Christians “will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3).

And we need men like you, both in their own marriages and families as well as in church ministries in which they work to reintroduce the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles that have been neglected for so many years.  This really must be a grass roots movement.  And when enough families join together in each local church, they can take back our local churches from the feminism that has poisoned them for so many decades.

And now in regard to the comment you mentioned from someone in your men’s ministry group that left you “dumbfounded”.  Below is a story I wrote to illustrate why the “That might work for you, but not my marriage” response to Biblical gender roles in marriage is wrong.

A Tale of Two Home Builders

A wealthy land owner comes to two builders.  He has already laid the foundation for two homes.  He presents them with the requirements for building materials that must be used and rules for how they must build.

The first rule is that they may only build on the foundation that he has already laid and they cannot add to it or take away from it.  The second rule is that they must build the home with uncut stones and grind up limestones and mix that with water and dirt to make the mortar.

Beyond the building materials, he leaves them with the basic requirements that the home must have a door, at least two windows, a kitchen, a living room and of course a bedroom.

He gives the builders freedom within these requirements to build for him the most beautiful homes they can.

The wealthy land owner says he is going on a long journey and will not return for three years.  He tells the two builders they are free to live in the homes they build for him until he returns.  And when he returns, he will judge their work.  He says each of their homes must pass a test that he will reveal when he returns.  If their home passes his test, they will receive great reward and honor.  If it does not pass his test, their shame will be upon their own head.

The first builder decides that stone homes are out of fashion. And it would be grueling and time-consuming work to lift and carry all those heavy stones. He reasoned that wood homes were much more in fashion and would take only a fraction of the time to build.  He would use that time savings to add more rooms to make the home more attractive.

The first builder finishes his home in only six months.  And it is a beautiful wood home.  He built not only a kitchen, living room and bedroom, but he also made a large dining room as well as a family room.  Of course, to build these extra rooms he had to add to the foundation that was already laid to make the house bigger.  But he was sure the wealthy land owner wouldn’t mind the few “minor” deviations he made from the building requirements.

The first builder is very impressed with the home he has built and he moves his family into this new home and throws great celebrations each week with his family and friends to show them the beauty of this home.

The second builder was not even half way through building his home when the first builder finished his. The second builder had set out to build the home following the express requirements of the wealthy land owner.  He searched for the best uncut stones to build with and limestone that he could grind and mix with dirt to form the mortar.

The first builder who had finished his wood home came to mock the second builder.  He told him how he was working too hard and his home was out of fashion.  “No one is building these stone homes anymore; you need to get with the times and build a wood home like me.  It is easier, faster and more attractive.”

But the second builder continued in his work.  His aim was to please the landowner who had contracted him to build this house. He built a door for the home using a stone that could be rolled away.  He built shutters from stone that could slide to and from the windows.  He only built a living room, kitchen and bedroom as required and he did not add one inch to the foundation that had already been laid. The second builder faced great difficulty in building a stone roof for his home but eventually the home was completed after two years at which time he moved his family into the home he had built.

One year later, after three years of being away, the wealthy land owner returned to test the homes that the two builders had built.

He came to the first builder’s wood home.  The wealthy landowner took note that the foundation had been added to.   “Why have you added to the foundation I laid?” he asked.  The first builder said “So I could build you a better home of course.  I added a beautiful family room and dining room”.  The land owner then asked “Why did you not use stone as I asked?” to which the first builder replied “Because wood homes are what everyone now builds.  It is more beautiful than stone and is able to be built which much less effort”. The first builder asked the wealthy land owner “Can I show you the inside of the house, I think you will find it very pleasing?” to which he replied “No – your home must first be tested before I will enter it”.

The wealthy land owner then took torch oil and spread it all over the four outer walls of the first builder’s wood home.  The first builder protested “why are you spreading torch oil all over the home I have built for you?” to which the land owner replied “To test it as I told you I would”.  He then lit the torch oil on fire.  The wood home was immediately engulfed in flames and the home quickly burned to the ground. The first builder screamed in agony “Why have you done this? Why have you destroyed what I have built for you?” to which the wealthy land owner responded “Why did you not follow my instructions?” He continued “If you would have followed my instructions your home would have passed my test and you would have received great honor and reward from me.  Now you have escaped the flames with only your life and the shame of what you have done here will be remembered by all who see these ruins.”

The wealthy land owner then came to the second builder’s stone home.  He took note that home was built exactly on the foundation which he had previously laid and nothing had been added to it or taken away from it.  He then took his torch oil again and spread it on the four walls of the stone home as he had on the wood home before it. He lit the stone home on fire.  As the oil burned off the stone walls of the home the home stood firm fully surviving the fire.

As the flames died out the wealthy landowner looked and saw the beautiful stone door and stone window shutters covering the two windows that had been built.  He rolled away the stone door to enter the home and saw just as he required that there was a living room, kitchen and bedroom.

He then turned to the second builder and said “Well done good and faithful builder. You will receive a great reward and honor for what you have done.  You have done well with this one home; I will now set you over all the other builders as they build homes on my land”.

We Must Follow God’s Design Requirements for Marriage

When someone’s response to hearing God’s design of Biblical gender roles in marriage is “That might work for you, but not my marriage” they are doing exactly what the first builder in the story you just read did. Many people truly believe that God just wants them to be happy in their marriages by any means they choose.  Like the first builder and his wood house, they want to take the easy way out.  They want their marriage to look like the world’s marriages. They don’t want to do the hard work in marriage that God’s design requires.

But God’s blue print for marriage is clearly spelled out in Ephesians 5:22-33.  He tells us that in marriage “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” and that “as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing”. God created marriage to model the relationship of himself to his people.  In this model men are to represent God in their love, sacrifice, leadership, provision and protection toward their wives as God does these things toward his people.  And women are to model the people of God by their service, submission and reverence to their husbands (Proverbs 12:4,1 Corinthians 11:7,Ephesians 5:33,1 Peter 3:5-6).

When we stand before God one day and he looks over our marriage he is not going to judge our marriage by how happy and peaceful it was. But rather he will judge our marriage by how we attempted to follow his design no matter how difficult it was to follow.

Is it wrong to have happiness and peace in our marriages? Of course not.  Happiness and peace may result from following God’s design for marriage, but these things should never be the goal of marriage.  The goal of marriage must always be bringing glory and honor to God by modeling the relationship of God to his people.

Will Your Marriage Survive the Trying Fire of God?

Every Christian husband and wife must face the sobering reality that one day all of our life’s work, including our marriages will be tested as to whether we followed God’s design.  The Bible reveals that just as in our story above, our works will be tried by the fire of God:

“10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (KJV)

All of our accomplishments in this life whether in our marriage or outside our marriage will be burned up if they are not done in obedience to God’s design.  And we do not get to choose how we bring God glory, but rather we must follow his rules and his design for how we are to bring him glory if we are to one day receive the reward that he has in store for us.

Conclusion

The “That might work for you, but not my marriage” response to Biblical gender roles in marriage reveals a lack of trust in God and a complete misunderstanding of the primary purpose of marriage.  God did not create marriage for the mutual happiness of men and women, he created it for his glory.

Wives, how long will you continue to deny that God created you to be in subjection to your husband rather than being his equal partner (Ephesians 5:22-24)? How long will you continue to deny that God created you to bear and care for your husband’s children (1 Timothy 5:14)? How long will you continue to deny that God created you to be a keeper in the home rather than a keeper in your career (Titus 2:5)?  How long will you continue to deny that God created your body for your husband’s sexual use and satisfaction (Proverbs 5:18-19, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 11:9)?

Husbands, how long will you continue to refuse to rule over your home as God commands (Genesis 3:16,1 Timothy 3:4)? How long will you continue to deny the responsibility you have to provide for your wife (Ephesians 5:29)?  How long will you continue to neglect the spiritual teaching, washing and correction that God requires of husbands toward their wives (1 Corinthians 14:35, Ephesians 5:25-27, Revelation 3:19)?

On a final note, I want to mention a way in which the “That might work for you, but not my marriage”  response would actually not be wrong.  If it is not in opposition to Biblical gender roles, but rather it is in response to leadership and teaching styles within the framework of Biblical gender roles then it is not wrong. I myself have used the phrase “That might work for you, but not my marriage” when speaking to other Christian husbands when we compare our leadership styles in marriage.  But it certainly was not said in any way that rejects Biblical gender roles.

God loves variety.  That is why he had so many men from different backgrounds write the various books of the Bible. That is why he had the four Gospels written showing his life from four different perspectives.  God has created us all, both men and women with different personalities and styles.

This is what I wanted to show in the Tale of Two builders story when I stated “He gives the builders freedom within these requirements to build for him the most beautiful homes they can”.   And in the same way God gives us as husbands certain latitude and freedom within the bounds of his requirements for marriage in how we go about our duties as husbands and fathers.

In other words, I may be genuinely attempting to follow Biblical gender roles in my marriage and you as a  husband might be as well, yet the style in which we conduct our marriages and our homes might be different in many ways.

But at the end of the day the most important question we must ask ourselves is “Will my marriage survive the trying fire of God when I stand before him?”

Sexism Is a Virtue Because the Bible is a Sexist Book

“So the Bible is a sexist book, and that fact alone should make Christians want to acknowledge that sexism has to be a virtue. And because the Bible has been assiduously ignored when it comes to these matters for lo, these many years, this should make us realize that it is also a lost virtue. Therefore it must be renewed, or restored, or recovered, or perhaps even reupholstered. But how?”

The statement above was made by Douglas Wilson on his “Blog and Mablog” site in an article he entitled “Restoring Sexism: The Lost Virtue”.

That is a bold assertion to state that “the Bible is a sexist book”.  So it is in fact true that the Bible is a sexist book?

Well first we need to define what sexism is.  According to Webster’s Online dictionary the definition of sexism is as follows:

“1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

So, the questions are does the Bible treat people different based on their sex and does it foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex?

The answer is a resounding YES.

In Ephesians 5:24 the Bible states “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” and in Titus 2:5 the Bible commands women to be “keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands”. It also states that women are not “…to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” in 1 Timothy 2:12 and in 1 Corinthians 14:35 it states “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home…” .

If those are not sexist statements right of out of the Bible, I don’t know what is. But we as Christians need to stop allowing humanists to frighten us into hiding with their labels.

And this is where Doug Wilson is taking a stand and I agree with him on this.  I have previously written an article on this same subject about two years ago entitled “Why Christians Should Be Proud Sexists”.  Some of my readers took offense at my attempt to redeem the term “sexist” as a badge of honor rather than a term of derision.   Others took offense at my use of the word “proud” quoting passages like James 4:6 where the Bible states “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble”.

I explained however, that my statement about us as Christians being proud was not a pride in ourselves, but rather a pride in God and in his Word.  It is pride that means to be “unashamed” as the Apostle Peter stated “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf”.

So, should we as Christians be ashamed of the fact that our Bible and our God who gave us our Bible treats people differently based on sex and fosters “stereotypes of social roles based on sex”? The answer for any Bible believing Christian should be “No I am not ashamed of God or his Word or his design of men and women”.

Let me give some other great statements by Doug Wilson in this article on this subject of sexism:

Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all. They are rather little wisps of aspirational fog floating off the sewage lagoon of late-stage secularism, and so we have no reason to feel bad about committing any such “sins.” If they are not gods at all, then sins against their commandments are not sins at all.

The living God has given us His Word, and nowhere in that Word does it say that sexism is a sin against Him. That means it is not a sin at all. In fact, various things that our culture defines as sexist are enshrined as virtues in Scripture, and this means that Christians should stop their furtive glancing from side to side, and simply acknowledge that it is high time for us to recover the lost virtue of sexism.

But what would such a recovery look like? How might we recover our sexist heritage? How shall we know when we have recovered it? The heart and soul of a restored sexism is to recognize that God created men and women with different natures, and has commanded us to recognize those natures as different, and to treat men and women differently simply because they are men and women respectively.”

Amen and Amen Mr. Wilson.   Mr. Wilson is absolutely right that “Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all“.  And we as Christian need to stop reverencing these false gods that our culture worships.  I have said many times that Western Civilization does indeed have a religion and that religion is Humanism.  And Humanism like some pagan religions of old is polytheistic in that it has many gods.  Some of those false gods are equality, education and the environment.  If you are not willing to bow down to these gods, and if you speak anything against egalitarianism, higher education or environmentalism you are speaking blasphemy in many parts of the Western world today.

The sad part is that many Christians today believe they can worship the false gods of equality, education and environment and place their faith in humanity while at the same time claiming they worship and place their faith in the God of the Bible.

But our God is a jealous God and he will not tolerate the worship of other gods.  In Exodus 34: 14 God says For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”.

In the end we all have a choice.  It is the choice that Joshua gave to Israel and it is the same choice we must give to America and the Western world today.

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)