“Deep Strength” Doubles Down On His Lies

by shammahworm

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.

https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/on-divorce/
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/09/02/on-divorce-part-2/
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/on-divorce-part-3/
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/on-divorce-part-4/
https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/divorce-advocates-are-the-same-as-egalitarians/

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.”

Advertisements