One thing to take from this chiasm is that God considers betrothal to be nearly as sacred as the marriage itself. If a man lies with a woman who is betrothed to another man, he is just as guilty of adultery as if she was already married.
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Short Lessons from the Proverbs
The Book of Proverbs records many (but far from all!) of the sayings of King Solomon, plus the words of a few other wise men and women. It includes profound wisdom on living a godly life, on finances, leadership, relationships, and even on farming and war.
Between January 2020 and April 2021 (and later), I recorded eighty-four (and counting) short video teachings on the Proverbs and how they apply to life in modern America. I have also linked almost all of them to one or more of the annual Torah portions. Those links can be found in YouTube playlists and in the topical tags on each video at Rumble, Daily Motion, and YouTube.
These videos are also in a Rumble playlist.
Don't forget to subscribe to my Rumble, Daily Motion and YouTube channels.
Short Lessons from Proverbs:
- Introduction to the Book of Proverbs, Proverbs
- The Fear of Our Fathers, Proverbs 1:7
- Proverbs 1:7 and the fear of the LORD, Proverbs 1:7
- When is it OK to lie, biblically speaking?, Proverbs 1:10-19
- Wisdom is free to whomever is willing to go get it., Proverbs 1:20-33
- The Book of Proverbs Is about Principles, not Laws, Proverbs 1
- Honoring Your Parents, Even the Bad Ones, Proverbs 2
- The Escalating Quest for Wisdom, Proverbs 2:1-8
- Fathers above and below, Proverbs 3:1-12
- The Man of Violence, Proverbs 3:31-32
- The Wisdom of Our Fathers, Proverbs 4:1-4
- A Heritage of Wisdom, Proverbs 4:1-19
- Prize Her Highly, and She Will Exalt You, Proverbs 4:8-9
- The Fires of Youth, Proverbs 5
- The Forbidden Teacher, Proverbs 5:5-6
- Your Sins Will Find You Out, Proverbs 5
- Defeating Laziness, Proverbs 6:6-11
- Fake News, Proverbs 6:12-19
- The Utility of Moral Boundaries, Proverbs 7
- Why so much about women in the Proverbs?, Proverbs 7-8
- Leveling Up in Wisdom, Proverbs 8:1-4
- Four Characteristics of Wisdom, Proverbs 9:1-6
- Teaching Fools and Wise Men, Proverbs 9:7-9
- The OTHER Proverbs 9 Woman, Proverbs 9:13-18
- Three Truths about Diligence and Sloth, Proverbs 10:4-5
- Three Kinds of Speech, Proverbs 10
- Speaking Up and Keeping Silent, Proverbs 10:10-11
- Systemic Injustice in Our Weights and Measures, Proverbs 11, 20
- Civil Government and God's Law, Proverbs 11:7-11
- Ensuring Your Legacy by Honoring Your Parents, Proverbs 11:29
- Two Characteristics of the Super Successful, Proverbs 12:1
- Five Times to Keep Silent, Proverbs 12:22-23
- Parents Just Don't Understand!, Proverbs 13:1
- How is it hateful to spare the rod?, Proverbs 13:24
- Nothing Happens without Some Mess, Proverbs 14:4
- My Best Advice for the Hebrew Roots Movement, Proverbs 14:23
- Tyrants, the People, and God, Proverbs 14:28
- Identifying Good Counsel, Proverbs 14:33,15:22
- Don't Let Your Dark Side Speak for You, Proverbs 15:28
- How to Be a King of Righteousness, Proverbs 16:10-16
- Pride Invites Destruction, Proverbs 16:18
- The Crucible of Hearts, Proverbs 17:3
- The Poor and Rich Alike Bear the Image of God, Proverbs 17:5
- A Deceitful Heart Sees a Deceitful World, Proverbs 17:20
- You weren't meant to be alone - Proverbs 18:1
- Think Before You Retort!, Proverbs 18:2
- There Are Always Two Sides, Proverbs 18:17
- Friends of the Rich and Poor, Proverbs 19:4
- Some People Have to Learn the Hard Way, Proverbs 19:19-20
- The Man of Chesed, Proverbs19:22
- The Dangers of Wine and Kings, Proverbs 20:1-2
- Plow today. Harvest...next year?, Proverbs 20:4
- Beware the Walkers!, Proverbs 20:18-19
- The King's Heart, Proverbs 21:1
- Pure Religion, Proverbs 21:3, 21:27
- The Importance of Diligence and Persistence, Proverbs 21:5
- Choosing a Good Name, Proverbs 22:1
- The Disciplining of a Child, Proverbs 22:15
- Does God Really Repay the Unjust? Proverbs 22
- Ancient Boundary Stones and Traditions, Proverbs 22:28
- Be Not A Friend to Drunkards, Proverbs 23:20-21
- Proverbs 24:1-6 and Enduring Conquest through Self-Discipline, Proverbs 24:1-6
- The Home Is for Healing, Proverbs 24:15-16
- Rejoicing over the Fall of Your Enemies, Proverbs 24:17-18
- Faithless Advisors are Poison to Leadership, Proverbs 25:4-5
- Words Fitly Spoken, Proverbs 25:11-12,15
- Love Your Enemy, Proverbs 25:21-22
- The Causes and Solutions to Laziness, Proverbs 26:13-16
- The Words of Whispers and Sycophants, Proverbs 26:22-23
- Hidden and Fake Love, Proverbs 27:5-6
- A Little Bitter Makes Your Whole Life Sweeter, Proverbs 27:7
- Social Justice vs God's Justice, Proverbs 28:4-5
- Invest God's Resources Wisely, Proverbs 28:19
- When the Righteous Hide, Proverbs 28:28
- Who Understands Justice for the Poor?, Proverbs 29:7
- Sons and Servants, Proverbs 29:21
- Of Whom Should We Be Afraid?, Proverbs 29:25
- Who Wrote Proverbs 30?, Proverbs 30:1
- There's no Compromising with Fire, Proverbs 30:15-16
- Of Mice, Men, Ants, and Lions, Proverbs 30:24-31
- The Burdens of Authority, Proverbs 31:1-9
- A Woman of Valor, Who Can Find?, Proverbs 31:10-12
- The Proverbs 31 Woman Reaches Out to the Needy, Proverbs 31:20-21
- The Gates of Proverbs 31, Proverbs 31:23,31
Timeline of Jacob's Life
A table showing Jacob's age at various events in his life.
My first thought on laying this out was "Why did Jacob wait so long to find a wife?" Evidently, like his mother Rebekah, he knew the Canaanite women were unacceptable, but he wasn't willing to strike out on his own without direction from his parents.
My second thought was "Jacob was 77 years old when he fell in love with Rachel," and she returned his love! People were longer lived, so he remained healthy and virile much later than men do today, but women also married young. Rachel was likely between 15 and 25, probably somewhere in the middle.
And my third thought was "All 6 of Leah's sons were born between when Jacob was 84 and 91. Could Leah really have had 6 children in just 7 years?" But my mother had 5 children in 5 years, so why not? Breastfeeding tends to suppress fertility, naturally spacing children out every couple of years, but it doesn't always work that way.
Things that make you go "hmm."
| Event | Jacob's Age |
|---|---|
| Esau married two Canaanite women |
40
|
| Jacob flees Esau & Betrothal to Rachel |
77
|
| End of Leah's 7 years & Marriage to Leah & Rachel |
84
|
| End of Rachel's 7 years & Birth of Joseph |
91
|
| Jacob leaves Laban |
97
|
| Joseph is sold by his brothers |
108
|
| Joseph is brought before Pharaoh & Beginning of the 7 years of plenty |
121
|
| Beginning of the 7 years of famine |
128
|
| Jacob stands before Pharaoh |
130
|
| Jacob dies |
147
|
My first thought on laying this out was "Why did Jacob wait so long to find a wife?" Evidently, like his mother Rebekah, he knew the Canaanite women were unacceptable, but he wasn't willing to strike out on his own without direction from his parents.
My second thought was "Jacob was 77 years old when he fell in love with Rachel," and she returned his love! People were longer lived, so he remained healthy and virile much later than men do today, but women also married young. Rachel was likely between 15 and 25, probably somewhere in the middle.
And my third thought was "All 6 of Leah's sons were born between when Jacob was 84 and 91. Could Leah really have had 6 children in just 7 years?" But my mother had 5 children in 5 years, so why not? Breastfeeding tends to suppress fertility, naturally spacing children out every couple of years, but it doesn't always work that way.
Things that make you go "hmm."
The Symbolism of Rings in Scripture
Throughout history rings have been used to symbolize affinity, devotion, and authority, as well as stores of value. Hebrews gave earrings, nose rings, and bracelets as signs of betrothal. Egyptians and Canaanites both wore earrings and nose rings to symbolize devotion to their deities. Lifelong slaves wore earrings as symbols of their master’s authority. Tribes wore rings of various kinds to advertise their belonging. Rulers wore signet rings, crowns, and torques as statements of wealth and authority.
In the Bible, a nezem (earring or nose ring) can be functional as a store of value, ornamental, or symbolic. Some examples of symbolic uses of rings:
In the Bible, a nezem (earring or nose ring) can be functional as a store of value, ornamental, or symbolic. Some examples of symbolic uses of rings:
- Genesis 24:22 Eliezer gave Rebekah an earring and two bracelets as a sign of betrothal to Isaac.
- Exodus 32:2-3 Aaron told the Israelite men to surrender the earrings of their wives and children for use in the golden calf. He did not ask for idols, amulets, necklaces, or other jewelry which would have contained a much greater amount of gold.
- Judges 8:24-26 Gideon asked for the earrings of the slain Ishmaelites and used them to make an idol.
- Ezekiel 16:11-12 God gave bracelets, a nose ring, earrings, and a crown to his bride.
- Hosea 2:13 God used earrings in a double entendre to refer to the ornamentation of a harlot and the symbols of idolatry.
- Job 42:11 According to the Septuagint, each of Job’s friends gave him an “unstamped” gold earring. Most translations only say “earring.” I suspect the ancient translators of the Septuagint meant to emphasize that these were not religious tokens. The need for such an emphasis would be significant in itself.
- Proverbs 25:12 A wise authority figure is a carved earring in an obedient ear.
Parallels Between Transfiguration and the Wedding at Cana
Check out these parallels between the Transfiguration on the Mount and the Wedding at Cana.
The Transfiguration is described in Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, and Luke 9:28-36. The Wedding at Cana in Galilee is described in John 2:1-12.
The primary point of the Transfiguration seems to be to demonstrate to Yeshua's inner circle that he was the prophet Moses had promised in Deuteronomy 18:15, but I don't know why there are so many parallels with the wedding at Cana. There are too many elements in common for this not to be significant. Sinai was a wedding and the Covenant a marriage ketubah. I'm sure there must be a clue there.
The Transfiguration is described in Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, and Luke 9:28-36. The Wedding at Cana in Galilee is described in John 2:1-12.
| Giving of the Law | Transfiguration on the Mount | Wedding at Cana in Galilee |
| On the 3rd day | After 6 days | After 3 days |
| Moses went up the mountain with Joshua. | Jesus went up the mountain with Peter, James, and John. | Jesus went to the wedding with his mother Mary and his disciples. |
| The Law was given on Mount Sinai, probably in Arabia, not the Sinai Peninsula. | The Transfiguration probably took place on Mount Tabor in Galilee. | The Wedding took place at Cana in a valley near Mount Tabor. |
| Moses said, "Listen to the prophet to come." | God said, "Listen to him." | Mary said, "Listen to him." |
| Moses was transfigured. | Jesus was transfigured. | Water was transfigured. |
| Hebrews fell on their faces, terrified. | Disciples were very tired, but later fell on their faces, terrified. | The wedding guests had "well drunk." |
| The glory of God appeared. | The glory of God appeared. | Jesus manifested his glory. |
| Moses came down the mountain with Joshua and the tablets. | Jesus came down the mountain with his disciples. | Jesus went to Capernaum with his mother, brothers, and disciples. |
| ? | The disciples kept silent. | The servants kept silent. |
| ? | Jesus said not to speak of it until after the resurrection. | Jesus asked Mary why she involved him since his time had not yet come. |
The primary point of the Transfiguration seems to be to demonstrate to Yeshua's inner circle that he was the prophet Moses had promised in Deuteronomy 18:15, but I don't know why there are so many parallels with the wedding at Cana. There are too many elements in common for this not to be significant. Sinai was a wedding and the Covenant a marriage ketubah. I'm sure there must be a clue there.
Forbidden Relationships...aka Love Wins!
Approaching God as a Nation, as Families, and as Individuals
Acharei Mot and Kedoshim (Leviticus 16-20) are about how we are and are not to relate to God. Since marriage is an image of our relationship to God, they contain many examples of forbidden human relationships.- Leviticus 16 – Approaching God as a nation.
- Leviticus 17 – Approaching God as individuals. Things that will prevent closeness.
- Leviticus 18 – Mistakes other peoples made in their relationships. Judgment as a nation and as individuals.
- Men with women
- The offspring of relationships between men and women
- Men with men
- Men and women with animals
- Leviticus 19 – Being set apart from other nations by a healthy relationship with God and each other.
- Leviticus 20 – Refusing to be different creates unhealthy relationships with God and each other. Don’t blow it.
The Only Love that Matters
In Leviticus 19, God said, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In Leviticus 20, He said "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death."There is no contradiction. Love means doing what's best for people. It means refusing to tolerate behaviors that destroy the community & its relationship with God.
Celebrating spiritual disease is cowardly. It's an excuse to avoid speaking the hard truth that homosexuality is perverse rot. It's death. Love doesn't see a person committing suicide and say, "Oh, how sweet! Love wins." What vile filth has infected people's souls that they could possibly entertain such things?
No, love says to the man drinking poison, "Stop! No more!"
This is love by God's standard, the only standard that matters: "You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them." (Lev 20:22a)
Open sexual perversion defiles the entire nation, not just those who practice it. The closer a nation is to God, the quicker and more severe is the ruin brought on by their wickedness. Things that will bring a nation to ruin: perversion, blood-guilt, idolatry.
Do you want to save America? Then don't tolerate open perversion. End abortion. God won't wait forever.
Fortunately, forgiveness awaits the penitent. "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked."
Prohibited Degrees of Kinship
There are numerous methods of charting degrees of consanguinity floating around out there, so I thought I should post something about my own. Especially since I have mentioned elsewhere that God prohibits marriage to anyone closer than the fourth degree.Ancestors and descendants, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, and siblings are all out of bounds. First cousins are acceptable. At least to God. You might feel differently.
Don't use this chart for legal purposes, of course. Many jurisdictions define the degrees differently.
 |
| God's Law prohibits marriage with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree relations. There are rare, marginal cases that are not addressed or that don't fit neatly into this hierarchy, but that's why God gave us minds and spirits. |
Mark McLellan on the Roles of Men and Women
Pastor Mark has another great podcast, this one on the respective roles and responsibilities of men and women in marriage. Listen to his last sermon at http://graftedin.com. Seriously. Listen.
Marriage in the Bible
Jacob, Rachel, & Leah: Whose Eyes Were Veiled?
Genesis 29:23 …he took Leah his daughter…
It appears that this maneuver was Laban’s idea, but Jewish tradition says that Rachel and Leah willingly cooperated. Jacob and Rachel had devised a secret sign for just this situation, so that Jacob would not be fooled. Rachel, knowing that Leah might never be able to marry and have a family, had compassion on her and revealed the secret sign to her. Even so, it seems difficult to believe that Jacob could make such a mistake, especially after having lived with both of these women for seven years. But there are several other factors to consider:
In support of the fourth and fifth items above, there is another tradition that says Esau should have married Leah while Jacob should have married Rachel. Since Jacob received Esau’s blessing from Isaac, he also had to be the father of all twelve of the tribes of Israel. Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah had been marked as the mothers of the nation of Israel, and no other woman would do. Therefore Jacob had to marry all four of them, and God made sure that it happened. But why did Rachel and Leah go along with this idea? I have heard some women say that they would rather be the third or fourth wife of King David than the first wife of Nabal.
The rabbis say that Jacob married so late in life because he had been studying under Shem, the son of Noah. I do not know if that is true, but it would certainly make Jacob a more attractive prospect than most other men. Having spent the last seven years in such close proximity to Jacob, Leah might have already harbored a strong attraction to him. She was also a godly woman and probably very respectful of her father’s wishes, however conniving he might be.
Rachel was more likely than Leah to find another husband if Jacob rejected her and could have felt some compassion toward her sister in her unfortunate situation. She was also a godly woman and probably experienced a great deal of conflict in her loyalties, as she was not yet fully married to Jacob.
It appears that this maneuver was Laban’s idea, but Jewish tradition says that Rachel and Leah willingly cooperated. Jacob and Rachel had devised a secret sign for just this situation, so that Jacob would not be fooled. Rachel, knowing that Leah might never be able to marry and have a family, had compassion on her and revealed the secret sign to her. Even so, it seems difficult to believe that Jacob could make such a mistake, especially after having lived with both of these women for seven years. But there are several other factors to consider:
- There was almost certainly a substantial amount of alcohol consumed during the celebrations.
- Rachel and Leah probably both wore veils, even in public, and which they might not have removed even on their wedding night until after the last lamp had been put out.
- The interior of an animal skin tent at night can be exceptionally dark.
- Jewish tradition says that Rachel and Leah were twins and so could have been very similar in height, weight, and build.
- God had promised to look after Jacob until he returned to Canaan, and Jacob’s blindness could have been induced by God to ensure the execution of a divine plan.
In support of the fourth and fifth items above, there is another tradition that says Esau should have married Leah while Jacob should have married Rachel. Since Jacob received Esau’s blessing from Isaac, he also had to be the father of all twelve of the tribes of Israel. Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah had been marked as the mothers of the nation of Israel, and no other woman would do. Therefore Jacob had to marry all four of them, and God made sure that it happened. But why did Rachel and Leah go along with this idea? I have heard some women say that they would rather be the third or fourth wife of King David than the first wife of Nabal.
The rabbis say that Jacob married so late in life because he had been studying under Shem, the son of Noah. I do not know if that is true, but it would certainly make Jacob a more attractive prospect than most other men. Having spent the last seven years in such close proximity to Jacob, Leah might have already harbored a strong attraction to him. She was also a godly woman and probably very respectful of her father’s wishes, however conniving he might be.
Rachel was more likely than Leah to find another husband if Jacob rejected her and could have felt some compassion toward her sister in her unfortunate situation. She was also a godly woman and probably experienced a great deal of conflict in her loyalties, as she was not yet fully married to Jacob.
Love Her or Leave Her Alone: Captive War Brides in Torah
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.Deuteronomy 21:10-14
The practice of taking captive women as concubines has long been frowned upon in western cultures, and for good reason. As with marrying more than one woman, marrying a prisoner of war is a complicated and difficult proposition. A man of weak character can't pull it off, and a man of poor character can't do it well. On the other hand, difficult doesn't mean sinful or impossible. In fact, in the context of the ancient near east--probably in other contexts as well--marriage was one of the best options available. It is better than killing her with the rest of her people or leaving her to be abused or enslaved by some other nation. At least as a concubine to an Israelite, she would be brought into the religion of Yahweh and enjoy the rights accorded to all wives by Torah.
Allowing a man to take such a woman back to his home also recognizes and helps to stem the harsh reality of rape in war. This law says that a man is not allowed to simply take whatever woman he wants, but knowing that he can still have her after following the proper procedure (and being reminded of that fact every year when reading Ki Tetzei, Deuteronomy 21:19-25:19, in the congregation) can serve to temper his immediate lusts. Chances are very good that after the thirty days of mourning have passed, he will have realized what a crazy idea it is to bring a pagan woman into his house, and he will allow her to leave. If not, then he would be required to begin her education in Torah and her conversion to belief in the True God before he could consummate the marriage. (See Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 7:3, and Deuteronomy 22:9-11.)
If he changes his mind and allows her to leave, she will no longer be a prisoner of war but a free woman with all the rights of a stranger in Israel. Those rights were considerable indeed, especially in light of what she might face in some other land.
The Myth of Domestic Violence
According to a report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (That mouthful sounds like a bureaucratic dream!), the leading cause of physical injury to women 18 and over is accidentally falling, not domestic violence or any other kind of violence against women. Not only is domestic violence not a leading cause of injury to women, all deliberate acts of violence account for only 1.4% of injuries suffered and reported by women.
Potential problems with the report:
I'm not saying domestic violence doesn't exist or isn't a problem. It's just not the rampant problem feminists and their allies would have you believe. They are either delusional or they are liars. Take your pick.
Potential problems with the report:
- It was made by government.
- It was made by people.
- It depends on accurate reporting in emergency rooms.
- It depends on emergency room visits.
- It depends on accurate compilation, analysis, etc. I.e. it was made by people.
I'm not saying domestic violence doesn't exist or isn't a problem. It's just not the rampant problem feminists and their allies would have you believe. They are either delusional or they are liars. Take your pick.
The Mishkan, Marriage, and the UFC
Exodus 35:1
And Moses gathered all the congregation... Moses gathered men, women, and children together to hear the Torah. We all suffer as a result of each other's wickedness, but every individual is responsible for his own obedience to God. A man cannot be held responsible for his wife's sins, nor can a woman be held responsible for her husband's. He is responsible for how he loves and leads his wife, and she is responsible for how she respects and obeys her husband.
Exodus 35:5
...whosoever is of a willing heart... God invited every individual man, woman, and child to donate the materials of the Tabernacle: the metals, fabrics, oil, spices, and gems, all of the things that, together, symbolize a complete and balanced child of God. They also symbolize the roles of husband, wife, and children in a family. God wanted free-will offerings, because he does not force us to become the people he wants us to be.
A man cannot be forced to love his wife; he must choose to love her. She can manipulate him and cajole him, but the result is not real love. It is form without substance. Likewise, a woman cannot be forced to submit to her husband's rule. A man can certainly try to force his wife to submit, but he will fail. He can beat her, threaten her, or manipulate her, but he will never have true submission from the heart. Either she will resist to the point at which he is no longer willing to keep her as his wife or else she will become someone else, someone much less than the woman he married.
And Moses gathered all the congregation... Moses gathered men, women, and children together to hear the Torah. We all suffer as a result of each other's wickedness, but every individual is responsible for his own obedience to God. A man cannot be held responsible for his wife's sins, nor can a woman be held responsible for her husband's. He is responsible for how he loves and leads his wife, and she is responsible for how she respects and obeys her husband.
Exodus 35:5
...whosoever is of a willing heart... God invited every individual man, woman, and child to donate the materials of the Tabernacle: the metals, fabrics, oil, spices, and gems, all of the things that, together, symbolize a complete and balanced child of God. They also symbolize the roles of husband, wife, and children in a family. God wanted free-will offerings, because he does not force us to become the people he wants us to be.
A man cannot be forced to love his wife; he must choose to love her. She can manipulate him and cajole him, but the result is not real love. It is form without substance. Likewise, a woman cannot be forced to submit to her husband's rule. A man can certainly try to force his wife to submit, but he will fail. He can beat her, threaten her, or manipulate her, but he will never have true submission from the heart. Either she will resist to the point at which he is no longer willing to keep her as his wife or else she will become someone else, someone much less than the woman he married.
Why Wasn't Rachel Buried with Jacob?
Genesis 49:31
…there I buried Leah. Jacob's concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah, were not buried in this cave because they probably died sometime later in Egypt. The real question is why Rachel was not buried here. It was certainly not because Leah held a higher place in Jacob's affections. I do not believe that it had anything to do with whom Jacob married first or who was a real wife and who was not. I suspect that the separate burial of Rachel was prophetic of the separation of the two houses of Israel and Judah. The latter has remained physically identifiable with the patriarchs while the former has been scattered and has forgotten their origins. The blessing of Joseph in verse 26 reinforces this idea in my mind: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."
…there I buried Leah. Jacob's concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah, were not buried in this cave because they probably died sometime later in Egypt. The real question is why Rachel was not buried here. It was certainly not because Leah held a higher place in Jacob's affections. I do not believe that it had anything to do with whom Jacob married first or who was a real wife and who was not. I suspect that the separate burial of Rachel was prophetic of the separation of the two houses of Israel and Judah. The latter has remained physically identifiable with the patriarchs while the former has been scattered and has forgotten their origins. The blessing of Joseph in verse 26 reinforces this idea in my mind: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."
Noach - A Man Worth Following
Genesis 6:18
…thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. Genesis does not describe Noah's family as especially righteous, although it is reasonable to believe that they were. (With the possible exception of Ham, of course. See Genesis 9:22-27.) The families of righteous men tend to be more righteous than the families of unrighteous men. The most convincing evidence of the character of Noah's family, however, is that they went along with his plan to build a giant boat contrary to common sense. They trusted Noah's judgment enough to stick by his side through one hundred years of ridicule and alienation. Most women today would leave their husband if he so much as quit his job to start a prison ministry or a homeless shelter. It would be almost unthinkable to stay with him while he gave up everything to pursue an unprecedented project with no conceivable benefit. How many women would even believe their husbands had heard from God, let alone support him in carrying out God's instructions? I do not mean to blame women. How many men could inspire their wives and children to such devotion? What kind of man must Noah have been to inspire such loyalty in his wife and to have brought up such children?
I should also mention that Noah is the second verifiably monogamous man mentioned in Scripture. The first monogamist introduced death into the world, while the second presided over death's ultimate implementation. Both men were righteous overall, but their monogamy seems to be more of a practical consideration than anything else. Adam could not have two wives because polygamy was not to be the standard pattern for all families. Noah could not have two wives for two reasons: there were too few good women in the world, and he only took with him on the ark what was necessary for regeneration.
…thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. Genesis does not describe Noah's family as especially righteous, although it is reasonable to believe that they were. (With the possible exception of Ham, of course. See Genesis 9:22-27.) The families of righteous men tend to be more righteous than the families of unrighteous men. The most convincing evidence of the character of Noah's family, however, is that they went along with his plan to build a giant boat contrary to common sense. They trusted Noah's judgment enough to stick by his side through one hundred years of ridicule and alienation. Most women today would leave their husband if he so much as quit his job to start a prison ministry or a homeless shelter. It would be almost unthinkable to stay with him while he gave up everything to pursue an unprecedented project with no conceivable benefit. How many women would even believe their husbands had heard from God, let alone support him in carrying out God's instructions? I do not mean to blame women. How many men could inspire their wives and children to such devotion? What kind of man must Noah have been to inspire such loyalty in his wife and to have brought up such children?
I should also mention that Noah is the second verifiably monogamous man mentioned in Scripture. The first monogamist introduced death into the world, while the second presided over death's ultimate implementation. Both men were righteous overall, but their monogamy seems to be more of a practical consideration than anything else. Adam could not have two wives because polygamy was not to be the standard pattern for all families. Noah could not have two wives for two reasons: there were too few good women in the world, and he only took with him on the ark what was necessary for regeneration.
A Good First Step
New law prompts Calif. county to halt all weddings
(AP) Heterosexual couples are rushing to get married in a conservative California county that plans to halt all civil wedding ceremonies as gay marriage is set to be legalized.
Kern County Clerk Ann Barnett says Friday is the last day the county will perform civil weddings.
Starting Tuesday, when the California Supreme Court's order legalizing same-sex marriage takes effect, Kern will issue new gender-neutral marriage licenses as required by law. But couples seeking to get hitched will have to go somewhere else for the ceremony.
Barnett says the increased demand for ceremonies would overwhelm her staff and pose office security risks. She made the announcement after learning she could not marry only couples of her choosing.
They've stopped performing marriage ceremonies. (Someone is bound to sue. People can't be content to just live their own lives. They have to force everyone else to participate.) Now they need to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. Then we'll really be getting somewhere positive.
Spiritual Network Security
Correctly structured relationships can be thought of as a sort of spiritual network security system and headcoverings are like firewalls. A covering in the wrong place can degrade communications and a missing firewall can leave one open to attack. If a man does not properly cover his wife with authority and love, or if a woman prays or prophesies without his covering, their prayers might be hindered by the cherubim of the throne room who act as Heaven's firewall blocking packets with corrupted spiritual signatures. She will also be vulnerable to attack, because she is missing her own firewall. When she prophesies, there is a strong possibility that she is receiving packets with a spoofed source address. If a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, the covering is a like a misplaced firewall that interferes with outgoing communications. (1 Peter 3:1-7 and 1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
The Woman Calculator
I've had a few years now to think about what traits (or lack of traits) I would want in a potential mate, as well as what traits are complete deal killers. The deal killers aren't necessarily the things that are most important to me, but they have a cut-off point, beyond which I am not willing to go. For example, I don't care whether a woman is a genius or just barely above average, but if she's stupid, then I'm not interested.- Respect. She can't be rude or spiteful. She has to treat other people, especially me, with respect.
- Patriarchy. She can't want to be in charge. I suspect that all women have a tendency toward manipulation and control, but if she knows this and tries to suppress it, that's all I ask. She has to believe that her husband is her head and be willing to submit herself to him and her will to his.
- Integrity. She can't be a thief, a cheat, or too much of a hypocrite.
- Figure. I'm OK with athletic, thin, chubby, tall, or short. But she can't be obese, skeletally thin, muscle-bound, or terribly misshappen. Call me shallow if you want, but if I'm not in the least turned on by what I see and feel, then that is going to be a serious hinderance to a relationship.
- Age. At least 18 (preferably over 25, but some young women are exceptional) and no more than 5 years my senior. I'm not interested in jail bait, and how many teenage girls in today's America are settled enough to handle a husband and children? On the downside, how many 25-40 year old women aren't bitter, sick, or have to hire a bellhop to carry all their baggage around?
- Honesty. Related, but not quite the same as integrity. So many women lie as a matter of course. Much of the time, they don't even realize they're doing it. They lie to protect themselves or to spare someone's feelings or just because they feel like it. Nobody is perfectly honest, but there's a limit.
- Beauty. An attractive face is clearly a plus, but beauty eventually fades. I don't care if a woman is plain, just so long as she isn't hideous. Fortunately for all of us, really ugly faces are even more rare than beautiful ones.
- Baggage. Everybody has issues, everybody has baggage, but a person has to be able to function. I'm not interested in anyone who's bipolar, psychotic, misandric, rage-filled, possessed, exceptionally bitter, too self-hating, etc...
- Religion. She has to be a believer. She doesn't have to agree with me on everything as long as she is in general agreement and knows that I set the rules in my house. If she doesn't know Yahweh, then she can hang out and be friends, but that's as far as it'll go.
- Intelligence. As I already said, I don't care if she isn't a genius, as long as she isn't stupid. I don't need a woman to match wits with me, but I need to know that my house will remain in order if I am absent. I need her to be able to understand me when I speak and to respond in an intelligent manner. If there will be children, then she needs to be able to teach them.
| Characteristic | Weight | Woman1 | Woman2 | Woman3 |
| Intelligence | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Maternity | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Trait 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Trait 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Trait 5 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 6 |
| Total | 18 | 15 | 13 | 16 |
These characteristics received the heaviest weights:
- Recommendations. Weight=5. Recommendations from people I greatly respect.
- Respect. Weight=3. See above.
- Patriarchy. Weight=3. See above.
- Kindness. Weight=3. Obvious.
- Integrity. Weight=3. See above.
- Industry. Weight=3. Hard working and self-motivated.
- Health. Weight=3. Obvious.
- Figure. Weight=3. See above.
- Age. Weight=3. See above.
A few other characteristics: Cheer, generosity, spirituality, torah, humor, fertility, family, domesticity (cooking, mending, etc.), financial acumen, etc.
I put 12 women on my chart. I was already very interested in 2 of them, mildly interested in 4. 2 others had expressed an interest in me, and I added 3 in whom I have no interest at all, just for balance. Based on the deal killing traits, I immediately eliminated 9 women. Out of a possible score of 136, the remaining 3 received scores of 93, 91, and 22. (The last received such a low score because too many cells are occupied by question marks.) That gives me a plan of action: Attract the attention of the 2 top scorers and collect more data on the 3rd place finisher.
I'm sure most women and some men would find this method too cold. I'm fine with that. If you don't like it, don't use it. I expect this might be more useful to analytically inclined men--computer geeks, engineers, etc. Many others might think I'm being too picky. I'm fine with that too. For the moment, I'm perfectly happy being single. I don't have or want a girlfriend, and I haven't asked anyone out since last August. At the moment, this is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.
Correction: I had a date in December, but it didn't turn out well. There's a deal killer I didn't mention: She forgets to tell you she's married.
Update March 13, 2008: Here's another deal killer: gross immodesty. I don't mind a tomboy, and I don't mind a twisted sense of humor. I don't want to hear about her sexual exploits or how proud she is of her bodily functions. I don't want anyone else to hear those things either. Modesty is all about knowing (and keeping!) the appropriate time and place for everything.
Update March 14, 2008: I used to think I was the only man to be so analytical about relationships until I came across this Kim du Toit article: Why Bother?
Update March 15, 2008: I need to add yet more fields:
- Parental Recommendations. Weight=5. Recommendations from my parents.
- Infatuation. Weight=4. Feelings come and go--which is why this only counts for 8 out of a possible 154 points (so far)--but I'd still really like to feel something for someone I might marry. Call me a romantic.
Divorce Is Not the Problem
Dr. Stephen Baskerville at MensNewsDaily wrote that "...until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays." The central problem is the divorce laws."
He's right that divorce is a problem and that the divorce laws are a problem, but he is way off when he says they are the central problem. The divorce laws are terribly perverse, but that is only a symptom of a greater problem that really is cultural. Or maybe I should say spiritual. The central problem with marriage today is feminism, rebellion against God's prescribed order. The absurdities of no fault divorce, mandatory and draconian spousal maintenance and child support payments, default child custody laws, homosexual marriage, et cetera, are the logical end of rejecting the common sense of created order. In that context, divorce is actually an oft-abused remedy that God has built into his Law.
Here's my ideal solution (as of today--I might change my mind later):
He's right that divorce is a problem and that the divorce laws are a problem, but he is way off when he says they are the central problem. The divorce laws are terribly perverse, but that is only a symptom of a greater problem that really is cultural. Or maybe I should say spiritual. The central problem with marriage today is feminism, rebellion against God's prescribed order. The absurdities of no fault divorce, mandatory and draconian spousal maintenance and child support payments, default child custody laws, homosexual marriage, et cetera, are the logical end of rejecting the common sense of created order. In that context, divorce is actually an oft-abused remedy that God has built into his Law.
Here's my ideal solution (as of today--I might change my mind later):
- Take marriage out of the hands of government. Do away with marriage licenses. The civil government has no legitimate role to play in deciding who may marry whom. Neither does the church.
- Replace marriage licenses and platitudinal "vows" that no one takes seriously with real marriage contracts that must be signed by the bride, groom, and at least one senior relative of each. Two would be better. If there are no relatives available, then a spiritual mentor, such as pastor, rabbi, or priest, would do.
- Reduce the government's role in marriage and divorce to contract enforcement.
- Immediately eliminate government financed welfare for able-bodied adults and corporations. Gradually eliminate most other government financed welfare programs as well and eliminate the income tax to compensate. Charity is admirable and spiritually mandatory, but there's no charity at the end of a gun.
- Institute a biblically based land and property reform. Every family gets its own land, which will be returned every fiftieth year without obligation. No land can ever be permanently sold, but can only be leased for a maximum term of fifty years. The only way that land can be permanently divided or transferred is through inheritance. Eliminate inheritance taxes. (I did say ideal and not necessarily practical, didn't I?)
- Replace the judicial concepts of punishment and reform with restitution and removal. Scrap 95% of all laws and send all the lawyers to an internment camp on the shores of the Beaufort Sea. The ones we don't just give to old Billy, anyways. All future judges in local courts must be unpaid and must be respected and successful men of the general public.
What Was Sarai's Status in Pharaoh's House?
From Genesis 12:15 - "...the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."
Sarai was taken to live in Pharaoh's house, but only in a state of semi-betrothal (v19). Apparently, it was a widespread practice for a wealthy man to take his prospective bride into his house--often against her will--as a sort of hostage in order to influence negotiations with her family and to forestall other potential suitors. Other possible reasons for this practice may have been to ensure the bride's purity and to watch for indications of sickness which appear over time. The same practice can be seen in...
Sarai was taken to live in Pharaoh's house, but only in a state of semi-betrothal (v19). Apparently, it was a widespread practice for a wealthy man to take his prospective bride into his house--often against her will--as a sort of hostage in order to influence negotiations with her family and to forestall other potential suitors. Other possible reasons for this practice may have been to ensure the bride's purity and to watch for indications of sickness which appear over time. The same practice can be seen in...
- The similar events at Gerar (Genesis 20:1-18).
- In the story of Dinah and Shechem (Genesis 34).
- The betrothal of a captured war bride (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
- In the story of Queen Esther (Esther 2:1-18).
Ron Paul on Marriage Licenses
According to Joe Kovacs at WorldNetDaily, Ron Paul denied the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.
"I think we have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage," Paul said. "Why don't you just tell them, 'Look it up in the dictionary to find out what marriage is?'"
He said the Defense of Marriage Act was good enough and if further regulations were necessary, "put it at the state level like the Constitution says."
Paul explained getting marriage licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons.
"True Christians," he said, "believe that marriage is a church function. It's not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married."
I think Paul only got that partly right, although still closer to true than any other candidate.
He's right that the federal government should stay out of anything having to do with marriage. There aren't many clearer instances of a power "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." It is simply beyond the right or authority of anyone in the federal government to make any laws whatsoever concerning marriage. Morally speaking, it is inappropriate for even individual States within the Union to legislate concerning marriage beyond defining it in relation to its laws. A marriage license, by definition, is state permission to marry. Slaves ask permission to marry, not free men.
However, I think Paul is wrong on two points.
First, marriage is is not a church function any more than it is a government function. What priest was present at the wedding of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:67)? Marriage is between a man and a wife with God as catalyst and witness. It is certainly appropriate for the couple's community, including church and government officials if they desire, to serve as witnesses to their vows or ceremonial participants but nothing more than that.
Second, I don't believe marriage licenses were created to address health concerns. They are primarily an exercise in state power. By insisting on a license, the state asserts its authority over you and your marriage. By seeking a license, you accede to that assertion. Although potential health issues, such as improper consanguinogamy, is often cited as a justification for marriage licenses, health has always been secondary to state power.
"I think we have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage," Paul said. "Why don't you just tell them, 'Look it up in the dictionary to find out what marriage is?'"
He said the Defense of Marriage Act was good enough and if further regulations were necessary, "put it at the state level like the Constitution says."
Paul explained getting marriage licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons.
"True Christians," he said, "believe that marriage is a church function. It's not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married."
I think Paul only got that partly right, although still closer to true than any other candidate.
He's right that the federal government should stay out of anything having to do with marriage. There aren't many clearer instances of a power "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." It is simply beyond the right or authority of anyone in the federal government to make any laws whatsoever concerning marriage. Morally speaking, it is inappropriate for even individual States within the Union to legislate concerning marriage beyond defining it in relation to its laws. A marriage license, by definition, is state permission to marry. Slaves ask permission to marry, not free men.
However, I think Paul is wrong on two points.
First, marriage is is not a church function any more than it is a government function. What priest was present at the wedding of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:67)? Marriage is between a man and a wife with God as catalyst and witness. It is certainly appropriate for the couple's community, including church and government officials if they desire, to serve as witnesses to their vows or ceremonial participants but nothing more than that.
Second, I don't believe marriage licenses were created to address health concerns. They are primarily an exercise in state power. By insisting on a license, the state asserts its authority over you and your marriage. By seeking a license, you accede to that assertion. Although potential health issues, such as improper consanguinogamy, is often cited as a justification for marriage licenses, health has always been secondary to state power.
Poly Women in a Mono World
An outsider’s observation...
In the Western world, you have to be an unusual kind of person to want to live polygynously, especially if you are a woman. In my experience, there are three kind of women who are willing to toss aside tradition in favor of the onslaught of pressures that you are certain to face as a polygynist.
Desperate. Some women have already faced some of the worst the world has to offer and are willing to face a little bit more in order to find the relief that comes with family and love. They don’t think very far ahead, living one day at a time without great regard for consequence.
Sick. Some women (some men, too, but that’s another article) love to destroy other people’s lives, especially their own. They weasel their way into families by feigning submission and gentleness, and then turn on the very people who have opened their homes, tearing down husbands and driving other wives away. If they aren’t interested in polygamy, you’ll find them as mistresses, one-night stands, bitter and angry. Patriarchy in action (sometimes the mere mention of it) sends them into fits of rage. They often make claims of strength, when they are anything but.
Free. Some women are open to polygyny because they are simply open. They don’t base life choices on what everyone else does. They choose what seems right to them, and not what others tell them is right. They are usually strong, secure, and intelligent. Some of these women started in the same way as the desperate women, but they responded differently. Their hardships drove them to freedom instead of to desperation. They rarely have a need for polygyny and neither do their husbands.
The desperate woman and the sick woman are likely to poison all their relationships with men, intentionally or not. The desperate woman should be handled with caution. Her perspective on life is seriously skewed, and she has propensities for selfishness and instability. You are likely to spend all of your time propping her up, instead of working together to build a family and ministry. The sick woman should be avoided at all costs. Her risks far outweigh her benefits, which are few and mostly fallacious. She will destroy your life and the lives of everyone else who gets close to her. Both of these two are also likely to be Jezebels, controlling and manipulative.
The free woman is every great man’s dream. If you are worth her time and you do your part, then your synergy will be amazing. Whatever you decide to do, you are likely to exceed everyone around you. If she puts her energy into becoming a great woman, then she will be a ruby set in pure gold.
In the Western world, you have to be an unusual kind of person to want to live polygynously, especially if you are a woman. In my experience, there are three kind of women who are willing to toss aside tradition in favor of the onslaught of pressures that you are certain to face as a polygynist.
Desperate. Some women have already faced some of the worst the world has to offer and are willing to face a little bit more in order to find the relief that comes with family and love. They don’t think very far ahead, living one day at a time without great regard for consequence.
Sick. Some women (some men, too, but that’s another article) love to destroy other people’s lives, especially their own. They weasel their way into families by feigning submission and gentleness, and then turn on the very people who have opened their homes, tearing down husbands and driving other wives away. If they aren’t interested in polygamy, you’ll find them as mistresses, one-night stands, bitter and angry. Patriarchy in action (sometimes the mere mention of it) sends them into fits of rage. They often make claims of strength, when they are anything but.
Free. Some women are open to polygyny because they are simply open. They don’t base life choices on what everyone else does. They choose what seems right to them, and not what others tell them is right. They are usually strong, secure, and intelligent. Some of these women started in the same way as the desperate women, but they responded differently. Their hardships drove them to freedom instead of to desperation. They rarely have a need for polygyny and neither do their husbands.
The desperate woman and the sick woman are likely to poison all their relationships with men, intentionally or not. The desperate woman should be handled with caution. Her perspective on life is seriously skewed, and she has propensities for selfishness and instability. You are likely to spend all of your time propping her up, instead of working together to build a family and ministry. The sick woman should be avoided at all costs. Her risks far outweigh her benefits, which are few and mostly fallacious. She will destroy your life and the lives of everyone else who gets close to her. Both of these two are also likely to be Jezebels, controlling and manipulative.
The free woman is every great man’s dream. If you are worth her time and you do your part, then your synergy will be amazing. Whatever you decide to do, you are likely to exceed everyone around you. If she puts her energy into becoming a great woman, then she will be a ruby set in pure gold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)