Shammah Worm

Something I Regret

I hate dealing with liars. Especially liars who lie about the scriptures. That being said I said something I regret on a post earlier tonight on DS’ blog.

I said it isn’t Christlike for a cuckold to stay with an adulteress when I should’ve said a cuckold staying with an adulteress isn’t a picture of the church(because the church has not, will not and never will do such a thing). Jesus Christ of course forgives all sinners and so a cuckold who forgives his adulteress wife is acting in a manner worthy of Christ. This is my mistake and I should’ve chosen my words more carefully. Thankfully Christ shows the same forgiveness for this mistake as he does to the sexually immoral.

All these things being said, DS has been shown to be lying about the topic of divorce and remarriage for over 2 years. He has:

-Lied about the Mosaic law.

-Lied about history.

-Lied about the definition of porneia.

-Lied about the context and historical setting of various passages of scripture.

All this can be verified by anyone who cares about the various posts on DS’ blog and this one(assuming he doesn’t delete them).



The Lies Of “Deep Strength”

I figured I would compile a list of links that will hopefully help anyone who stumbles across the blog or DS’ make sticks and beans out of the scattered posts. If anyone reading this cares to actually take the time to go through hundreds of posts over months, the below links should take you to where you need to go. I can’t remember if I posted in the first post on this list.

On Divorce

On Divorce Part 2

On Divorce Part 3

On Divorce Part 4 

Divorce Advocates Are The Same As Egalitarians

On Divorce Part 5

I’ll end this post with a copy and paste I said in the comments section of “Deep Strength’s” blog.

These are clear cut cases of dishonesty on the part of DS. Men come on here for sound doctrine and instead of getting the true teaching of the Bible, get a churchian “no divorce ever” heresy. In the three or so years I’ve been reading Dalrock and much of his blog roll, I’ve never seen a topic that goes unanswered more than the “no divorce ever” lie. A lot of readers in this little corner of the internet don’t have the energy to give long, detailed answers to these heresies and I don’t blame them. But victim’s of these heresies need to know that they have no obligation to bear the heavy burdens imposed on them by popery or other false teachers.


Still Won’t Accept The Plain Teachings of Christ

This is a post I just made on DS’ blog. I realized he’s still contradicting Christ’s teachings on divorce and remarriage a few days ago when I was making my rounds on the manosphere. Someday I’ll probably do a full write-up on why the “no divorce ever” position is so damaging to our fundamental understanding of Christ’s relationship to His bride the church.


“What is the only case you can “put away” a “wife” without legal divorce? In the Law of Moses that would be Deuteronomy 22 where the marriage was invalid because of fraud. Since the marriage was invalid because of fraud, you can put her away without giving her a writ of divorce.”

You’re still lying and you know it. There is no divorce option in Deut. 22. The Israelites were commanded to put women who falsely represented their virginity to death. Roman occupation in no way absolved them of this command.

Porneia means all manner of sexual sin and at no point in the scriptures refers to only marital fraud. 1 cor. 5: 1 uses it to describe adultery and numerous other passages use it to describe premarital sex. Matthew 5 and 19 are clear that a man may divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality for both marital fraud AND adultery. This means a man may “put away” for all manner of sexual sin.

For two years, myself and other posters have given you the truth both here and on some other blogs but you continue to lie.

You make up tenets of the Mosaic Law by claiming Deut. 22 gives an option to “put away” when it commands death(verses 20-21).

You make up history by claiming the Pharisees were trying to pit Jesus against Roman divorce law when Jews had no obligation to follow Roman laws on divorce in their own country. Jesus was in no danger in this regard because Jews weren’t considered Roman and were allowed to make many of their own civil codes.

You make up “context” by claiming the exact same Greek words mean different things in different gospels when the recipients of said gospels were either Greek speaking Jews or Gentiles with knowledge of the Mosaic law already.

You make up a new definition of porneia while simultaneously using the correct definition.

On and on you ignore all the falsehood of your posts and re-post the same lies under the auspices of “consolidation” and “simplification.” As long as you do this, I’ll take time away from other parts of my life to remind you of your sin and provide the truth to anyone unfortunate enough to stumble across these “teachings.”


“Deep Strength” Doubles Down On His Lies

This post is about another blogger’s false teachings on divorce and remarriage which he continues to propagate even after being repeatedly corrected. It references months worth of material contained on multiple posts from the locations listed below. If you haven’t read them and the comments, then you likely won’t be able to follow my responses to his most recent post.

The Lord’s teachings on divorce and remarriage are simple and clear.

Matthew 19: 9, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

A man has the right to divorce his wife and remarry in cases of sexual immorality. This includes adultery. This is clear because the Greek word porneia, which is the word translated as sexual immorality in the above verse is used in the same way in the below passage. Note how incestuous adultery is used as a specific example of porneia.

1 Corinthians 5: 1, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.”

“Deep Strength’s” blatant dishonesty regarding the scriptures in order to continue to impose false burdens on men who are seeking help and sound doctrine has shown he is the opposite of his handle. So I will once again parrot the truth.
“1. If Jesus meant adultery and divorce then he would’ve been agreeing with the Pharisees. Jesus simply doesn’t do this ever.”

This is an outright lie. Jesus doesn’t agree with the Pharisees because the Pharisees weren’t teaching that a man could divorce only for sexual immorality and were instead twisting scripture to create all sorts of other reasons for divorce which the scriptures don’t allow. “Deep Strength” is falsely representing the teaching of the Pharisees in order to contradict the clear teaching of Christ.

“2. The disciples did not respond like he was agreeing with the Pharisees and instead thought that it’s better not to marry. Men could already divorce for adultery: this would not be a reason the disciples thought Jesus was crazy.”

The reason why the disciples were shocked is because divorce happened for reasons other than sexual immorality in the Old Testament scriptures. It also meant divorce wasn’t allowed for numerous “good” reasons such as idolatry or betrayal(See what Samson’s first Philistine wife did to him for example).

“3. Textual context of the words being used.”

Much of the “context” is a fantasy made up by “Deep Strength” in order to force the scriptures to fit his false teachings. The real context was discussed in detail.

“4. Mary/Joseph example of Deut 22, 1 Cor 5 example of illicit marriage (incest).”

Here “Deep Strength” lies about two passages of scripture. Deut. 22 did not give an option to divorce and required death if a girl was found to have falsely represented her virginity at the consummation of the marriage. Joseph didn’t make any attempt to consummate the marriage to Mary and therefore the situation in Deut. 22 never came up. “Deep Strength” lies regarding 1 Cor 5: 1 by claiming it refers to an illicit marriage when in reality the passage describes incestuous adultery. It doesn’t talk about illicit marriage at all.

“5. Distinction of putting away in the same passage and Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi.”

Jesus says a man may “put away” and remarry in cases of sexual immorality so this is a moot point. But it should be pointed out that “Deep Strength” has shown a greater concern for whether or not the man in Malachi wrote a certificate of divorce instead of whether or not the man was dealing treacherously with the wife of his youth. Here “Deep Strength” chooses to neglect the weightier issues of the law in a futile attempt to affirm his false doctrines.

“6. The trick question context.”

The trick question has been shown over and over again to be a work of fiction originating in the mind of “Deep Strength” and not from historical, Roman occupied Judea. At no point was Jesus asked a trick question by Jewish leaders to try and get Him to contradict Roman law or to trap Him in a Roman law vs Jewish law dichotomy. Jews weren’t considered Roman and were allowed to set many of their own laws. This included divorce.

“7. Lack of agreement with Mark 10 and Luke 16.”

As “Deep Strength” already knows, the Jews were under the laws of the Old Testament which required adulteresses to be executed. The only time it was possible to divorce for adultery is when the witnesses required to convict for adultery couldn’t be provided. Roman occupation in no way changed this commandment.

“8. Early Church did not permit divorce or remarriage. They were the ones who heard it from the mouth of Jesus.”

The early church did permit divorce and remarriage in cases of sexual immorality because that’s what the scriptures actually say. The teaching in Matthew IS the teaching of the early church fathers. ALL “Christian” writing and positions that contradict the Bible are false regardless of who the person was who wrote it or what their supposed connections to the early apostles were.

“4. Lack of reference to the ideal: “what God has put together let man not separate” — if divorce was allowed by Jesus then it’s still hard hearted to do it.”

Jesus Christ aka God in the flesh stated plainly a man may divorce and remarry for sexual immorality. It is no sin. Deut. 24 makes it clear that a man is separated from a woman he divorced who has married another person to such an extent that he is committing “an abomination before the Lord” if he were to take her back.

“Deep Strength” thinks Jesus Christ would permit something that’s hard-hearted and therefore sinful. I suspect he has far bigger theological problems than the “no divorce ever” heresy.

I’ll close this out by saying what I said in the comment section from one of his last posts.
“The ‘no divorce ever’ lie is easily the most perverse lie of churchianity propagated in the manosphere which seeks to lay up enormous false, heavy burdens on men that they have no obligation to bear. A lot of people on here understandably don’t have the energy to answer all the “no divorce ever” heresies and just take Christ at his word(Matt. 5 and 19). The problem is some men, especially those who are new or who have pastors with false doctrine need more of an explanation than that. For that reason, I’ll take the time away from my other reading and writing to answer.”

DS’ False Divorce Teaching

It’s unfortunate it’s come to this. But I’m forced to bring up “Deep Strength’s” false divorce teaching. I put his name in quotes because he’s resorted to removing my latest warning and correction to his lies. I say lies because he’s been repeatedly shown information which he ignores and attempts to contradict. The “no divorce ever” lie must be exposed for the sake of sound doctrine. It’s vital to understanding God’s relationship to His body and to alleviate false, heavy burdens imposed by churchianity.

The information is in the comments of his posts themselves as well as my own past posts on this blog. As of right now, he’s only removed the below post. You can find my full range of posts at


Should he delete my other responses, I’ll post them here. Below is the post which was deleted. This post is part of a longer conversation over multiple posts.

“December 16, 2015 at 4:35 pm

They’re not debunked at all. You’re lying and you know it.

1 Corinthians 5: 1, “It is actually reported that there is SEXUAL IMMORALITY(porneia) among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.”

Porneia as you’ve been shown and you even admit, includes adultery. I’ll post what was already written back on October 29th.

“There are no distinguishing words. As you’ve been shown many times, the reason why Jesus uses porneia instead of adultery is because a man has the right to divorce his wife if she lied about her sexual history AND also for adultery. If a man is married to a woman for decades and finds out she lied about her sexual history before she was married to him, he has the right to divorce and remarry.”

That’s why Jesus uses “fornication/sexual immorality” instead of “adultery.” You know this. The error you’re making is akin to saying abortion isn’t murder because the term murder is used instead of abortion.

“Put away” is synonymous with divorce in the Greek. Even it it’s not, Jesus still says a man can “put away” for sexual immorality and that means a man can put away for adultery.”

A Correction

It’s been brought to my attention that the post titled “Yes, There is Biblical Divorce and Remarriage” contains some portions which imply Matthew 19 applies to women as much as men. Such as this paragraph,

“These passages demonstrate that in cases of sexual sin a man has the right to divorce his wife. He also has the right to marry another wife. It’s not adultery. God recognizes divorce in the case of fornication. He also recognizes remarriage of the wronged party in such cases. He recognizes divorce and remarriage in these cases the same way He recognizes divorce and remarriage of a new convert who was abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.”

To be clear. Matthew 19 applies to men only. My apologies to anyone to whom this has caused problems. Women DO NOT have the right of divorce that men do. I don’t think a woman who’s a believer can remarry if she’s divorced from a husband who’s a believer while he is still alive. Upon further study, it appears the only occasion where a woman can remarry while her ex is still alive is in the case of a new convert who’s divorced by her unbelieving husband. She DOES NOT have the right to initiate divorce.

1 Corinthians 7: 15, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

Unless bondage means something other than marriage, this verse seems pretty straight forward.

2 Verses Which Make Biblical Divorce and Remarriage Clear

Here are two simple verses for anyone who isn’t in the mood to read my post on biblical divorce and remarriage. Yes, there is biblical divorce and remarriage.

1 Corinthians 5: 1(KJV), “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.

Adultery IS fornication.

Matthew 19: 9(KJV), “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Jesus is without a doubt including adultery when He says “fornication.” Anyone who rejects this definition of “fornication” must also reject the KJV of the Bible. The reason why Jesus says fornication and not adultery is because a man also has the right to divorce a woman who’s lied about her sexual history – even if they’ve been married for decades.

Porneia(translated as “fornication”) has never at any point meant only premarital sex. It’s always included adultery. Anyone who reads this and continues to propagate the falsehood that adultery isn’t grounds for divorce is lying. A man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin. No pastor or elders have the authority to tell him no once sexual sin is established.