Biblical Gender Roles

💥 Why God Created Two Genders For 6,000 years, patriarchy was normal. Now it’s called oppression. 👉 My book exposes feminism’s lies, defends male headship, and restores Biblical gender roles. 👉 Check it out on Amazon amazon.com/dp/B0FDXLYQR3

Your argument fails because Scripture does not require every sin to have a specifically stated civil punishment attached to it in order for it to be sinful. Take prostitution for example. Paul explicitly condemns men going to prostitutes in 1 Corinthians 6. Why? Is it merely because money changed hands? No. Paul’s entire argument is that a man is becoming ‘one flesh’ with a woman outside the marriage covenant. Yet where in the Mosaic Law is there a prescribed civil punishment for a man visiting a prostitute? There isn’t one. So are you going to argue God approved prostitution simply because no judicial penalty was attached to it? Of course not. The point is that prostitution is condemned for the same reason all fornication is condemned: two people becoming one flesh outside of marriage. Your argument wrongly assumes that if Scripture does not prescribe a punishment for a particular sexual sin, then God must approve of it. That logic simply does not hold up biblically.

@ThoughtDiarrheo IF she's a virgin* The post literally says "But where in Scripture is a man punished for sleeping with a non-virgin woman who was not another man’s wife?" What did I miss?

I’m currently working on a new video that may be one of the most controversial videos I’ve ever released. The topic? Does the Bible actually say sex before marriage is a sin? And before you freak out, hear me out… For over a decade I was one of the loudest voices FOR sexual purity culture. I wrote Why Waiting Works. I made a viral video called 10 Reasons Not to Have Sex Before Marriage. So this isn’t some random opinion I formed overnight because I wanted an excuse to sin. This came from going back to the actual text. The Greek word translated “fornication” is porneia, which simply means sexual immorality. So the real question becomes: What does God define as sexually immoral? When you go back to Leviticus 18, you’ll find adultery, incest, homosexual acts, and bestiality clearly prohibited. But you will NOT find: “Sex before marriage.” And here’s something even more interesting… Scripture only protects two categories of women sexually: Virgins and wives. If a man slept with a virgin, there were consequences. If he slept with another man’s wife, that was adultery. But where in Scripture is a man punished for sleeping with a non-virgin woman who was not another man’s wife? Seriously. Show me. And whether people realize it or not, this false doctrine has created massive unintended consequences. Women spend their teens and 20s giving it away to men who don’t follow God… then suddenly expect YOU to buy it because “the Bible says so.” Meanwhile the women who actually protected their purity are rarely celebrated at all. And here’s another problem: Women emotionally bond through sex. So the men most committed to obeying God are often the LAST men women emotionally bond with… while ungodly men get the bonding benefits and run rotations of women, usually to the women’s own detriment. Now to be clear: I am NOT promoting recklessness. Pregnancy, STDs, emotional damage, and post-nut clarity are all very real. Wisdom still matters. But maybe it’s time to stop asking: “How do we defend tradition?” And start asking: “What does the Bible actually say?” If you want the full breakdown, watch my conversation with Glenn Braunstein, author of The Biblical Case for Polygamy and be on the lookout for that new video of mine to be posted. I look forward to reading your comments: youtu.be/4B7k97hv-n0?si…

I didn’t assign men the role of leaders, providers and protectors, nor women the role of wives, mothers and homemakers — God did. And because God assigned these roles, they are moral roles, not merely personal preferences. Scripture says men are to provide for and care for their households: “He that provideth not for his own… hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” — 1 Timothy 5:8 Husbands are also called to sacrificial leadership and protection: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” — Ephesians 5:25 And Scripture explicitly calls women to marriage, motherhood and care of the home: “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house…” — 1 Timothy 5:14 “That they may teach the young women… to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home…” — Titus 2:4-5 This modern idea that all roles are interchangeable and that God has no distinct design for men and women is not biblical Christianity — it is modern egalitarian ideology imposed onto the Bible. You may dislike God’s design, but don’t pretend Christians invented it. Scripture assigned these roles long before modern feminism existed.

The absurdity is pretending women’s labor only counts when a man approves of the arrangement. If staying home works for your family, great. But unpaid labor is still labor. Cooking, cleaning, childcare, scheduling, emotional support …if you had to hire people to do it all, suddenly it has monetary value. Funny how that works. And the profile name ‘Biblical Gender Roles’ kind of proves the point. The goal was never flexibility or freedom. It’s assigning roles first and calling it morality afterward.

God commands men to be the providers which is a heavy burden they will carry for life, and women to be the keepers at home which becomes far easier as the children grow up and leave the nest. Women need to stop minimizing what God calls men to do and appreciate them instead.

"Unpaid labor" - so a woman should receive a paycheck for caring for her own children, cooking meals for herself, her children and her husband? Like she is a hired maid and nanny and these people are not her own family? What stupidity. So in your mind, it would be better for her to go work a full time job like her husband and then they pay someone else to do the "labor" of caring for her children and her home as long as everyone is getting a "paid" for their labor? Do you even understand the absurdity of your position?

@godlywomanhood Funny how ‘God’s plan’ always seems to end with women doing unpaid labor while men get called heroes for having a job. If this lifestyle works for your marriage, fine. But turning personal beliefs into universal rules for all women isn’t faith it’s control.

Corporal punishment is not inherently abuse. Abuse is the unjust, cruel, or uncontrolled use of physical force. Scripture distinguishes between abusive violence and lawful discipline or punishment. In fact, God prescribed corporal punishment in the Old Testament not only for children, but also as a civil punishment carried out by governing authorities in Israel’s theocracy (Deuteronomy 25:1–3). Modern society rejects almost all forms of corporal punishment, but I personally believe many communities would be better off if limited corporal punishment were restored for certain crimes instead of relying almost entirely on imprisonment.

@BibGen1 isn't corporal punishment a form of physical abuse? If not, then why doesn't the government use it to discipline criminals and discourage further crimes?

So Israel is the only nation in the world who holds these wicked views on abortion and homosexuality? No one else holds these wicked views? No one ever held these wicked views before the Israel existed? Wait...I think there was these places called Sodom and Gommorah and held these views long before Israel existed.

@MattWalshBlog @NickJFuentes You’re literally describing Israel right now Matt and you don’t even realize it. Who owns the largest skin bank in the world Matt? WHO performed the first trans surgery? Who started planned parenthood? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t Iran.

If we’re going to have a conservative civil war, the dividing line should be those who believe in protecting and preserving marriage, the family, and unborn life vs those indifferent or opposed. You can’t be a conservative in any meaningful sense if you don’t want to conserve the bedrock of civilization itself.

Every bad judge is Jewish and every non-Jewish judge is a saint. Every bad decision comes from one group while everyone else just stumbles into perfection. Complex civilizations rise and fall over thousands of years, but actually it’s all secretly controlled by a tiny group the whole time. Millions of independent decisions across governments, courts, and cultures—none of it is real agency, it’s always someone else pulling the strings. Bad ideas never ever originate in the West itself either… they’re always imported by one convenient villain. Flawless theory. No notes.

Agree on points 2 to 5. But I totally disagree that Zionism is a problem. The Bible literally teaches what people today call Zionism—that the land was given to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that God is not finished with them as a people. You don’t need dispensationalism to see that. It’s right there in the text. God calls His covenant with Abraham and his descendants everlasting and explicitly ties it to the land (Genesis 17:7–8). Then in Jeremiah 31:35–37, God says Israel will continue as a nation before Him as long as the fixed order of creation stands. That’s not symbolic language—it’s a direct statement about their ongoing national identity. And then you get to Romans 11, which really settles it. Paul says Israel, in their current state, are “enemies for your sake” as it relates to the gospel, but at the same time “beloved for the fathers’ sake,” and that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:28–29). So who are these people who are both enemies and yet still beloved? The Jews. Paul is making a distinction. Romans 11 shows two realities at once. There is a spiritual people of God—the church—made up of both Jews and Gentiles grafted together. But there is also a physical people, the ethnic descendants of Abraham, who still have a future in God’s plan. Paul goes on to say their blindness is partial and temporary until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and then Israel will be restored. So from a Historic Premillennial perspective, Israel’s current unbelief doesn’t cancel their identity—it actually fits the pattern Scripture lays out. First unbelief, then restoration. So no, Zionism isn’t an “enemy.” You can debate politics, you can reject dispensationalism, but if you take Scripture seriously, you can’t say God is done with the Jewish people or that their connection to that land is meaningless.

America has five core enemies: 1. Zionism 2. Liberal Women 3. Islam 4. Hinduism 5. Violent Blacks Here are the solutions: 1. Eliminate Dispensationalism 2. Repeal the 19th 3. Mass Deport Muslims & Outlaw Islam 4. Mass Deport H1B’s & Outlaw Hinduism 5. Publicly Hang Murderers

🔥 In 195 BC, Rome faced something it had never seen before. Women flooded the streets, pressured lawmakers, and demanded the repeal of laws restraining luxury. On the Senate floor, Cato the Elder warned: “If each of us had maintained his authority over his own wife, we should have less trouble with women as a whole… The moment they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors.” He wasn’t speaking from hatred. He was speaking from observation. He understood that when authority in the home is surrendered, it doesn’t stay contained—it reshapes society. Rome ignored him. Centuries later, one of America’s founders saw the same pattern. John Adams wrote in 1776: “We know better than to repeal our masculine systems… which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat.” By “despotism of the petticoat,” Adams was referring to women—and warning that if male authority were surrendered, women would come to rule over men. Different civilizations. Same warning. This isn’t about denying that women have value. It’s about recognizing where that value is meant to be expressed—in the home, not in the realm of political rule. Sadly, Adams’ warning was ignored by those who came after him. And men in America, like the men of Rome, gave in to the protests and pressure of women. In time, they granted women equal rights with men. And now, much like Rome became, we have become a soft and weakened society. And like Rome, we too will fall if we do not reverse course. The Bible warns that a society ruled by women, rather than by men, is one under the judgment of God: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” — Isaiah 3:12 And now in the last 150 years we see the consequences of society making women equal with men. Plummeting marriage rates and birth rates and skyrocketing divorce rates. A society where people live for themselves based completely on their feelings. A wicked society that encourages promiscuity and abortion. Make no mistake America and Western culture will collapse and return to the natural order of Patriarchy one way or the other. It will either collapse suddenly under the weight of its own foolishness or it will return to patriarchy gradually as men and women turn back to God and embrace his order for society. The choice is ours. 📖 Why God Created Two Genders 🎙️ Unfiltered Podcast – link in bio #biblicalgenderroles #politics #feminism #feminismiscancer #egalitarianism

@CarlosRivasMD @TrevorSheatz biblicalgenderroles.com/2016/09/20/doe…

Sir can you please refer me to a post of yours on the topic of biblical sober patriarchal physical discipline of the wife by the husband, and specifically, contradicting modern effeminate interpretations of scripture that conflate all physical discipline with domestic violence and thus ban prudent restrained physical correction.

You’re not wrong for wanting a virgin wife. But you are also not wrong for marrying a woman who is isn’t a virgin but has repented of her former sinful lifestyle. This viral post from @TrevorSheatz is sparking debate—but the truth is, the Bible doesn’t force us into an either/or. It gives us both grace and standards. First—grace is real. No one is beyond redemption. No past is too broken for God to cleanse. 📖 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) A woman who has sinned sexually, repented, and turned to Christ is forgiven. She is cleansed - spiritually. But sexual sin can have lasting physical and emotional consequences, and those realities should not be ignored when choosing a spouse. But here’s what many are afraid to say today… Virginity still matters. God didn’t treat it as meaningless—He treated it as valuable. 📖 “And he shall take a wife in her virginity…” (Lev. 21:13) And the New Testament reinforces that ideal: 📖 “…that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:2) Virginity is used as a picture of purity itself. So no—a man is not wrong for valuing it. He is not shallow. He is not unspiritual. Here’s the real balance: If a man lived in sexual sin and then repented, he should be humble enough to consider a woman who has done the same. But if a man has remained sexually pure, there is nothing sinful about him desiring the same in a wife. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s consistency. The problem with posts like this is subtle: In trying to remove shame from women’s past sin, they often end up shaming men for having standards. Men are told: “Don’t prioritize virginity. Don’t value it that much.” Scripture never says that. God values sexual purity. So it’s not wrong for men to value it too. You don’t have to choose between grace and standards. The Bible doesn’t. Grace forgives the past. Standards still guide the future. It’s not either/or. It’s both. 📖 Want a deeper biblical breakdown of sex, purity, and marriage? Check out my book Why God Created Two Genders + my uncensored podcast at BGRLearning.com #ChristianMen #ChristianDating #Masculinity #purity #relationshipadvice

It's actually shows how degenerate our modern society is that you have to ask this question at all. Before the last 150 years (and the advent if modern dating in the late 1800s) 95 percent of all women were saving sex for marriage and only courting (not dating) for marriage. Notice I left the 5 percent there to acknowledge there have always been whores throughout history 😀

MEN - If she tells you on the first date that she is dating for marriage and is saving sex for marriage, would you want a second date? Why or why not?

@man_of_options I don't see a DM? In Instagram or X where did you DM me?

Fornication is a Latin word from what I'm told, it's not even Greek or Hebrew. I really need to get you and Glenn Braunstein on a live together. If you want to pick apart what I just DM'ed you and tell me where he gets it wrong, I sure would appreciate it. I think he would appreciate it too if he was in fact in error.

Not really weird at all. Male promiscuity isn’t even mentioned in the Bible, but female promiscuity is mentioned over and over. In fact, in ancient Israel women were expected to be virgins on their wedding night (Deut. 22), and men had the right to marry more than one woman (Ex. 21:10). Now you have former hoes getting virgin men to commit to lifelong monogamy! 🙃 It’s literally the complete inverse of God’s order…which is why people have taken such an issue with it, even if they can’t express exactly why.

Rob—yes, “fornication” is a Latin-derived English word. That part is true. But that’s not really the issue. The real question is—what word is it translating? In the New Testament, the Greek word is porneia. That’s the word Paul actually uses. And porneia is a broad term for sexual immorality—it includes prostitution, adultery, and any sexual activity outside of marriage. So, we’re not building doctrine off a Latin word—we’re translating a Greek word that already has a clear meaning. And Paul doesn’t leave that meaning vague. In 1 Corinthians 6 he defines it by pointing back to Genesis—“the two shall be one flesh.” So, in other words, porneia is any one-flesh union outside of covenant marriage. That’s coming straight from the text. So this isn’t really a translation issue—it’s a category issue. Paul puts prostitution under porneia, and then explains that category using God’s design for sex itself. And as far as the live discussion—I’m fine with that. But before we go there, we’ve got to stay grounded in the text. Because once you follow Paul’s logic, it’s actually pretty simple. Sex creates one flesh. One flesh was designed for marriage. Outside marriage, it’s porneia. And that includes prostitution—not just temple prostitution.

Rob—let me ask you this. Was anyone ever given a specific civil punishment for drunkenness? Scripture clearly condemns it over and over (Proverbs 20:1, 23:29–35), but where is the law that says, “a man caught drunk shall receive X punishment”? What about gluttony? Laziness? Greed? Oppressing others? Taking advantage of people? Pride? All of these are clearly condemned in the Old Testament—but you won’t find a consistent civil penalty attached to each one. So, are those not really sins because there’s no stated punishment? That’s the problem with the framework you’re using. You’re trying to define sin based on whether there’s a listed court penalty. But Scripture doesn’t define sin that way. God calls something sin because it violates His design and His law—not because He always assigns a specific civil punishment to it in Israel’s legal system. And we already established what prostitution falls under. Paul puts it in the category of fornication, and then explains why: It creates a one-flesh union outside of marriage. So, in other words, the question isn’t, “what was the court penalty?” The question is, “does this violate God’s design for sex?” And the answer to that—according to both Old and New Testament—is clearly yes.

@BibGen1 So no one was ever punished for it? Ever? Also, I didn't ask if it was a capital offense, I only asked what the actual punishment was/is?

Rob—please don’t miss or gloss over this. You asked, “what is the sin?” I already showed you 1 Corinthians 6:16 where Paul explicitly explains why prostitution is sin. “He which is joined to an harlot is one body… for two shall be one flesh.” So, the issue isn’t temple prostitution versus regular prostitution. Paul doesn’t even make that distinction. He explains the sin itself. When a man has sex with a prostitute, he becomes one flesh with her. That’s a Genesis concept. That’s how God designed sex—to create a one-flesh union within marriage. In other words, prostitution is sin because it creates a one-flesh union outside of covenant. So, the category Paul puts it in is not “idolatry”—it’s fornication. He then says plainly: “Flee fornication.” And then immediately gives the only solution: “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.” So, Paul defines the sin and then defines the boundary. Sex outside marriage = fornication Marriage = the only lawful place for sex In other words, prostitution—temple or not—is sinful because it violates God’s design for sex itself. It takes what God created for covenant and uses it outside of covenant. That’s why it’s sin.

@BibGen1 Was anyone ever punished for prostitution in the Bible? Can you give me the scripture reference? What is the sin and punishment? I apologize if I've asked these questions before, but I don't think I have. I am sincerely trying to learn. Thank you

No—the biblical condemnation of harlotry is not limited simply to temple prostitutes. Scripture condemns all forms of prostitution, both in the Old Testament and the New. In the Old Testament, Hebrew actually uses two different words. Zonah refers to a general prostitute, while qedeshah refers to a cult or temple prostitute tied to pagan worship. And both are explicitly condemned. General prostitution is condemned in places like Leviticus 19:29 and Deuteronomy 23:17, and temple prostitution is also condemned in Deuteronomy 23:17–18 and 1 Kings 14:24. So there’s no category of prostitution that’s allowed—God forbids both. Now when you get to the New Testament, Greek doesn’t carry that same distinction. It primarily uses one word—porne—which is a broad term for a prostitute or sexually immoral woman. So the idea that Paul is only talking about temple prostitution isn’t coming from the Greek text—it’s being read into it. If Paul meant temple prostitution specifically, he had plenty of ways to make that clear. He could have tied it directly to idolatry. He could have referenced pagan worship practices. He could have narrowed the context. But he doesn’t do any of that. Instead, he says, “What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? … for two shall be one flesh.” So, his argument isn’t about temples at all—it’s about what sex is. Sex creates a one-flesh union. That’s a Genesis principle. In other words, the issue isn’t where the sex happens—it’s that it’s happening outside of covenant. And then look at how he frames everything around that. He says, “Flee fornication,” and then immediately after, “To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.” So, Paul gives one command and one solution. Flee sexual immorality and direct your sexual desire into marriage. In other words, he’s not saying avoid temple prostitution—he’s saying avoid all sex outside marriage. So for the temple prostitute argument to work, you’d have to believe Paul used a broad word, gave a universal argument about one flesh, issued a blanket command to flee fornication, and then gave a single outlet in marriage—but somehow only meant a very narrow category. That just doesn’t hold up. So what Paul is actually doing is expanding the category, not narrowing it. He’s taking sexual sin out of just pagan temple contexts and rooting it in God’s design from the beginning. In other words, once you follow his logic, it rules out all sex outside covenant. And that includes what we would call male promiscuity.

@BibGen1 Doesn’t “harlot” or “harlotry” have to do with temple prostitution and not just prostitution itself? I’m not advocating for men sleeping with prostitutes, but we need to find the words correctly.

Men, you’re not wrong for wanting a virgin wife. But you are also not wrong for marrying a woman who is isn’t a virgin but has repented of her former sinful lifestyle. This viral post from @TrevorSheatz is sparking debate—but the truth is, the Bible doesn’t force us into an either/or. It gives us both grace and standards. First—grace is real. No one is beyond redemption. No past is too broken for God to cleanse. 📖 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) A woman who has sinned sexually, repented, and turned to Christ is forgiven. She is cleansed - spiritually. But sexual sin can have lasting physical and emotional consequences, and those realities should not be ignored when choosing a spouse. But here’s what many are afraid to say today… Virginity still matters. God didn’t treat it as meaningless—He treated it as valuable. 📖 “And he shall take a wife in her virginity…” (Lev. 21:13) And the New Testament reinforces that ideal: 📖 “…that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:2) Virginity is used as a picture of purity itself. So no—a man is not wrong for valuing it. He is not shallow. He is not unspiritual. Here’s the real balance: If a man lived in sexual sin and then repented, he should be humble enough to consider a woman who has done the same. But if a man has remained sexually pure, there is nothing sinful about him desiring the same in a wife. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s consistency. The problem with posts like this is subtle: In trying to remove shame from women’s past sin, they often end up shaming men for having standards. Men are told: “Don’t prioritize virginity. Don’t value it that much.” Scripture never says that. God values sexual purity. So it’s not wrong for men to value it too. You don’t have to choose between grace and standards. The Bible doesn’t. Grace forgives the past. Standards still guide the future. It’s not either/or. It’s both. 📖 Want a deeper biblical breakdown of sex, purity, and marriage? Check out my book Why God Created Two Genders + my uncensored podcast at BGRLearning.com #ChristianMen #ChristianDating #Masculinity #purity #relationshipadvice

Men prefer to marry virgins rather than harlots.

That response completely misses the point—and flips God’s design on its head. A man is not “another child” because he comes home after working all day and wants peace. The Bible actually places the burden of provision squarely on his shoulders before God. “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith…” (1 Timothy 5:8). That responsibility is heavy. It is constant. And it is God-given. So when a man sits down at the end of the day, he is not acting like a child—he is a man who has already fulfilled his primary duty. But modern thinking despises that distinction. It wants to turn marriage into a 50/50 “partnership,” where both are doing everything all the time. That’s not how Scripture describes it. The Bible says plainly, “the head of the woman is the man” (1 Corinthians 11:3). And it shows wives honoring that role: “as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (1 Peter 3:5–6). That is not partnership language—that is headship. And alongside that headship, God gives the wife her own domain: “that they may be…keepers at home” (Titus 2:5). Her calling is not to compete with her husband or demand equal burdens in every moment, but to manage the home and care for the children. So when a woman resents her husband resting, what she is really revealing is that she has rejected the roles God established. Yes, a husband should love his wife. Yes, he should help where appropriate. But that is very different from this modern expectation that he must come home and immediately take over her responsibilities as if they are interchangeable. He is not her “partner.” He is her head. And a godly woman doesn’t despise that—she honors it.

A liberal woman truly cannot stand it when her husband gets bored, rests, or drinks his coffee in peace. She will always try to invent some task for him or come up with something she can complain about.

You’re not wrong for wanting a virgin wife. But you are also not wrong for marrying a woman who is isn’t a virgin but has repented of her former sinful lifestyle. This viral post from @TrevorSheatz is sparking debate—but the truth is, the Bible doesn’t force us into an either/or. It gives us both grace and standards. First—grace is real. No one is beyond redemption. No past is too broken for God to cleanse. 📖 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) A woman who has sinned sexually, repented, and turned to Christ is forgiven. She is cleansed - spiritually. But sexual sin can have lasting physical and emotional consequences, and those realities should not be ignored when choosing a spouse. But here’s what many are afraid to say today… Virginity still matters. God didn’t treat it as meaningless—He treated it as valuable. 📖 “And he shall take a wife in her virginity…” (Lev. 21:13) And the New Testament reinforces that ideal: 📖 “…that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Cor. 11:2) Virginity is used as a picture of purity itself. So no—a man is not wrong for valuing it. He is not shallow. He is not unspiritual. Here’s the real balance: If a man lived in sexual sin and then repented, he should be humble enough to consider a woman who has done the same. But if a man has remained sexually pure, there is nothing sinful about him desiring the same in a wife. That’s not hypocrisy. That’s consistency. The problem with posts like this is subtle: In trying to remove shame from women’s past sin, they often end up shaming men for having standards. Men are told: “Don’t prioritize virginity. Don’t value it that much.” Scripture never says that. God values sexual purity. So it’s not wrong for men to value it too. You don’t have to choose between grace and standards. The Bible doesn’t. Grace forgives the past. Standards still guide the future. It’s not either/or. It’s both. 📖 Want a deeper biblical breakdown of sex, purity, and marriage? Check out my book Why God Created Two Genders + my uncensored podcast at BGRLearning.com #ChristianMen #ChristianDating #Masculinity #purity #relationshipadvice

My wife was formerly promiscuous. I was a virgin. She was then radically born-again. Committed to church, evangelized constantly, Puritan books in her bedroom, prayer journals, grief over past sexual sin, etc. We got to know each other well for over a year, dated for four months, engaged for two and a half, and didn't sin sexually with one another. Our first kiss with each other was at the altar on our wedding day (reaction pic attached!). We've been married for over five years now, and she's been the most wonderful and godly wife, mother to our three children, and homemaker you could imagine. She's more pure than most virgins, as biblical purity has less to with past sins (though they certainly matter) and more to do with one's current posture of the heart and daily decisions to honor the Lord (Matt. 5:8). We're far too quick to forget the story of the woman labeled as a known "sinner" (likely a prostitute) in Luke 7:36-50 who was washing Jesus' feet with her tears while kissing them too. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus let a public sinner do this. Jesus responded with a parable about debts being forgiven and ended with this powerful conclusion: "Her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). Everyone seems to highlight the benefits of virginity, and it certainly is a blessing. But we forget to highlight the benefits of being forgiven much as well. My wife knows the depths of Jesus' forgiveness more than most people, enabling her to more easily live out a life of passionate love for her Savior. A woman or man's past sexual sin matters. But what matters far more when it comes to deciding who to marry is if the person is truly born again, if their repentance is real, if they truly have a heart for Christ, if they truly follow Jesus and obey his commands. "God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God has chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world ​— ​what is viewed as nothing ​— ​to bring to nothing what is viewed as something, so that no one may boast in his presence. It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us ​— ​our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, — in order that, as it is written: 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" (1 Cor. 1:27-31) "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, and see, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17)