(Sorry this one is so sloppy. I was tired and stressed. Excuses, excuses.)
Passover commemorates the day that God spared the Israelites from the plague against the firstborn. The blood of the lamb painted on the wooden door posts prophesied of the blood of Yeshua (the Lamb of God) on the wooden cross and how he is the only door through which anyone can survive the curse of death. The only thing required for that salvation is faith in God's promise of mercy for those who belong to him. Painting the blood on the door was an outward sign of that faith.
Passover is also a family celebration. It is supposed to be celebrated with your family. If the family is too small to eat a whole lamb, then you invite the neighbors over too. Together, the family is supposed to eat the entire lamb. Nothing is supposed to be left over. That sounds kind of gross, but it really is what God expects of us in the rest of our life, too. We don't get to pick and choose what parts of Yeshua to keep and which parts to reject. It's all or nothing, the conqueror and absolute ruler along with the servant and messiah.
The day after Passover is the first day of Unleavened Bread, which lasts for seven days. The Israelites had to leave Egypt with their bread dough unleavened and uncooked. All yeast is supposed to be out of the house by the end of Passover day. Sometimes yeast is used in scripture to symbolize sin, and seven represents perfection. Yeshua's sacrifice erases sin from the record of our lives, and that's how we start out our new life in God's eyes. It's a continual fight to keep sin out, though. There really is no way to eliminate all yeast from your home. It's in the air, and there were no hepafilters in ancient Egypt. There is no way to eliminate all sin from your life, either. Don't focus on being sinless. Focus on eliminating the sin as you find it, and as you are able.
The first day after the first regular Sabbath after Passover is called First Fruits. It's a day to dedicate the first of your early crops to God. The firstborn of every animal and every family also belongs to God. Paul called Yeshua the firstborn or the first fruits of the resurrection. First Fruits is always on the first day of the week, the same day that Yeshua rose from the dead.
All of the biblical feasts are prophecies of the Messiah in one way or another. Passover is the first feast of the year and the inauguration of the Kingdom of God.
What Puts Teens at Risk? And What Can Be Done About It?
The Problem
As a teenager you know that something is not right with the world, and you are always certain that you know exactly what it is, even if it is something different from one day to the next. As an adult, you may still know that something is not right, but you might be a little less certain of what it is, except that it has something to do with those teenagers. I am joking, of course. Well, maybe a little.The difficulty is that some problems, like those of teenagers in trouble, are so hard to define. Teenagers today are at risk from any number of potentially life-wrecking alternatives. Most of them successfully avoid the worst pitfalls, but why and how? What causes violent, criminal, and other severely antisocial behaviors in teens? Are they just emulating their parents? Are they driven to despair by broken homes and absent fathers? More importantly, what can we do to minimize the risks for our young people?
I wish I could say that the answers are obvious. Unfortunately, the problem is clouded by the lenses that we all build up over our own eyes throughout our lives. It is not enough to say what worked or did not work for you or me. We have to look beyond our own family cultures, religions, and circumstances to identify whatever common factors there might be among troubled teens. Let us begin by defining the scope of the problem.
The Scope
Every place has its unique combination of culture, religion, politics, language, etc, making it unreasonable to attempt a global answer for these questions. Our first step should be to limit ourselves to a geographic and cultural boundary which we can reasonably address. I have decided to limit my analysis to the United States. I know its culture better than I know any other, having lived in it for better than thirty-five years to date.There are a few common elements to the stories of most troubled youth across the entire country. They experience roughly the same entertainment in the forms of movies, television, radio, music, sports, and literature. With some qualifications, they live within the same pop culture, which is informed by those same entertainment media. A great many of them grew up in relative poverty, and at least as many of them grew up in broken homes, with one or both parents absent.
Entertainment
Of those four elements, entertainment is probably the most widely mutual. Every teenager does not have a Showtime subscription or an Xbox, but most of them have a friend who frequently shares. They all occasionally have an opportunity to spend time at a movie theatre or video arcade. Most know the same bands and music. Most know who played in the last Super Bowl or NBA finals.The link between violent video games and movies and juvenile crime has been in the news frequently in recent years. I do not think anyone would honestly argue that playing video games forced anyone to commit murder or any other crime, but it may not be such a stretch to say that those games might influence some people in that direction.1
On the other hand, violent crime seems to be generally on the decline, while virtual violence is on the rise. There is certainly a link between violent entertainment, including music and literature, and some juvenile crime, but a broadly applicable connection has not been established.2 We cannot categorically say that virtual violence causes real violence, but I think we can safely say that it does not alleviate it either.
Poverty
Not as ubiquitous and certainly less fun, poverty-technically economic inequality-is another common denominator among troubled youths. Crime and poverty seem to go hand in hand. Wherever there is a concentrated economic disparity, there seems to be more crime, more gangs, more drugs, and more social problems of almost every sort. Once again, a firm causal connection cannot be established. Most likely crime, poverty, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, divorce, and a whole host of other social ills probably feed off of each other.3 They all contribute to a general feeling of hopelessness that keeps people from climbing out of the mess, and the whole cycle starts over again.4Divorce and Broken Families
The fourth common element is a broken home, and its tragic nature is such that I have to resist giving it more weight than it may be due. The causes of single-parent homes range from unwed mothers to divorce, but the latter is be more closely associated with teenage behavioral issues.5Divorce, poverty, and antisocial behavior among teens are inextricably linked. Seventy-five percent of female-headed, single-family homes live below the poverty level, and eighty-five percent of children with behavioral disorders6 and ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children7 also come from fatherless homes. Similar statistics can be found to correlate almost every social problem imaginable with the absence of fathers. Even those researchers and pundits who do not believe that absent fathers are a significant risk to teenagers admit that fathers are necessary for proper socialization and discipline of children.8
The Solution
Any solution to the problem of teenagers at risk must address these three issues: the negative influences of pop culture, poverty, and broken families. They must be addressed on two levels: correction and prevention. We must restore those who have already been harmed, and we must prevent the same thing from happening to more children.The first step in any effective program is to start at the beginning, in infancy. The primary influences over every child are his own parents, and then his extended family. Parents must take responsibility for their own children. This means teaching strict morals from the earliest age, enforcing them consistently.9 Since children learn standards of behavior by example more than by any other means, parents must enforce those same strict morals for themselves.
Extended families need to be encouraged to stay close together to provide the support networks that parents have depended on for millennia. Professional childcare services should be used as a last resort. As much as possible, moral standards should be consistent across generations. Grandparents and other relatives can be depended on to maintain that consistency. When family is not available, people in the community, such as members of the same church, can perform much the same function.
Churches and other community organizations need to be willing to help families stay together, and to provide refuge for those already in trouble. When possible and desirable, they should help restore broken families and alienated youth, teaching them how to resolve problems and have healthier relationships.
At all levels fathers should be encouraged to spend time teaching and showing real interest in their children. Trends over the last forty years indicate that policies favoring no-fault divorce, sole custody, and default maternal custody increase divorce rates and the alienation of fathers from their children.10 Family and divorce courts must be restructured to encourage restoration and development rather than easy divorce. We must eliminate cookie-cutter divorce settlements-especially custody and child support rules-as unfair to everyone involved.
As children grow, it is important to control negative influences. Parents should pay close attention to their children's games, music, and video. Entertainers who promote unacceptable behavior need to be consistently shunned. Since the entertainment industry is driven by profit, the children of good parents will be sheltered from the worst entertainment, and the worst will get better. Media sources should offer parents better tools, such as more specific and detailed ratings without the often tempting wording of today's film ratings.11 Parental controls must be honored by schools, recreation centers, and other youth-oriented establishments.
Community organizations, services, and businesses can also help children develop good habits and relationship skills by providing mentors in many areas. Extra curricular teachers, such as martial arts, dancing, religious, or music instructors, should work with parents to reinforce moral standards. They could provide teens with opportunities to expand their skills and horizons through mentorships, teaching more than just karate or piano, but also life skills. They could provide surrogate fathers and mothers to teens who have already lost one or both parents for whatever reason. They could provide hope and direction to teens who have never known those things.12
If minimum wages were relaxed for this purpose, local business could offer apprenticeships and internships as opportunities and incentives to learning. Teens who might otherwise simply drop out might find ongoing rewards for staying in school, while they learn real-life skills and purpose that will serve them for the rest of their lives. At the same time, they can help bring extra income to their families and perhaps remove their younger siblings that much further from poverty.
All of these solutions have two things in common: They are both local and national. They are all local, community-focused solutions that can adapt to the changing circumstances across neighborhoods, cities, states, and cultures. They are national in that they are present in every community in this country. Almost everyone is born into a family. Everyone exists in a community. Everyone has a church or a school or a business or a teacher nearby.
Teenagers are faced with serious trials no matter where they are, no matter how much money they have, and no matter who their parents are. Some of them just have better support networks. If communities work together to provide healthy options for their own members, those teenagers who do not have two parents or solid boundaries or money will have a better chance of beating the odds. They will have better and more numerous options. Most importantly, they will have hope for their future.
1 Rebecca Hagelin, "Video Game Violence & Our Sons," WorldNetDaily, March 28, 2006. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49470. Also see Mona Charen, "Media Violence Puts Teens at Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pp 29-32.
2 Benjamin Radford, "Reality Check on Video Game Violence," Skeptical Inquirer, December 04, 2005. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.livescience.com/technology/051204_video_violence.html. Also see Mike Males, "Media Violence Does Not Put Teens at Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pp 33-37.
3 Dr. Thomas O'Connor, "Poverty, Inequality, and Crime," Department of Justice Studies & Applied Criminology, North Carolina Wesleyan College. Last accessed on 3/29/06 at http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect07.htm.
4 An anonymous drug/alcohol counselor and psychiatric worker in a teen hospital, known by the handle red_red_read.
5Richard Kuhn and Dr. John Guidubaldi, "Child Custody Policies and Divorce Rates in the US," Children's Rights Council, 1997. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/divrates.php.
6 Gene Stephens, "A Variety of Factors Put Teens at Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pg 20.
7 U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census, as reported by Getting Men Involved: The Newsletter of the Bay Area Male Involvement Network, Spring 1997, and fathermag.com. Last accessed on 3/28/06 at http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml.
8 Stephanie Coontz, "The Absence of Fathers Does Not Put Teens at Significant Risk," Teens at Risk: Opposing Viewpoints, by Laura K. Egendorf, Editor. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1999, pg 42.
9 Ray Harrison, pastor and retired high school teacher. Personal correspondence, March 17, 2006.
10 Kuhn and Guidubaldi, "Child Custody Policies"
11 I have seen films that were "Rated R for intense martial arts action."
12 Anonymous music academy owner. Personal correspondence, March 18, 2006.
Me and My Labels
I know you're just dying to know all about me, and if you're not, then you ought to be....Just kidding. Mostly.
People seem to have a lot of false impressions about me. In a world full of labels, it's easy to grab one that's handy and use it, and sometimes that's helpful. We generalize and stereotype because it helps us to sort out the world and deal with the plague of Too Much Information. Unfortunately, those labels never really fit anything perfectly, and they fit some things and people--yours truly, for example--less perfectly than others. If you only read one of my articles about the Torah, you might think I'm Jewish. If you only read one of my articles about polygamy, you might think I'm a rogue Mormon. If you read all of my articles, you might just have a whole fistful of labels, not all of them so benign. Let me sort some of them out for you:
Christian - If a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, then I like this label. People have different ideas about what he taught, though, so let me clarify. I believe that Jesus, whom I prefer to call by his Hebrew name of Yeshua, is the only man ever conceived as a Son of God, meaning that he was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the direct action of God. I also believe that he existed before he was conceived, and, in fact, existed before everything. He was the Voice of God that spoke the Universe into existence. He appeared as a man and an angel to the patriarchs and to Moses and Joshua. He lived a perfect, sinless life, never violating the Torah, and then, of his own free will, he was crucified by both gentiles and Jews, his blood making a perfect atonement for all the world's sin. He was raised from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and has promised to return again in physical form. I believe that he wants us to live as he lived, honoring the Torah by his love for the Father and for men. I take him seriously when he says that, so long as heaven and earth still exist, we should live and teach the Torah and the Prophets. So if my life labels me as a "little Christ" then so be it.
Jewish - As far as I'm aware, I don't have any Jewish ancestors. But then, I've only been able to trace my family back a few hundred years to the Korpers/Kerbers in 17th century Hesse-Darmstadt. On the other hand, there is an old Jewish family by the name of Korper a few hundred miles away in Hungary. I've read speculation that the Korper name came from the scribes or unit historians that accompanied Roman military units which settled in the fringes of the Empire. Some of those scribes may have been Jewish, since Jews tended to be more literate than the general population at the time. Some of them might have adopted the occupational name of Korper, and some of those might have migrated a little further north into Germany. Some big maybes there. I don't see any reason to stretch the point though, so I'm operating under the assumption that I am not of Jewish descent. I'm not sure it would make any practical difference if I am. (Update 2016: It turns out I do have some Jewish DNA, less than 1%, but its origins are so lost in the mists of family history, that it might as well not be there at all. It's irrelevant to salvation or citizenship in the nation of Israel.)
No, the other Jewish - I'm not the other Jewish, either. The religious kind, I mean. I don't recognize any inherent authority in anyone calling himself a rabbi, nor do I adhere to the teachings of the Talmud. I think that Judaism has a lot of good things going for it, but it has a lot of bad, too. The Jews are at least as far off the mark as the Catholics or the Mormons, and not as far off as some others that I might still consider brothers in the faith. I practice some common Christian traditions, such as baptism andcommunion, and I have also adopted (or adapted) some worthwhile Jewish traditions, such as their Passover seder and singing the Shema.
Flake - There might be a grain of truth in this label. I'll let you be the judge.
Messianic - The term "messianic" refers to the Messiah, and "Messianic Jew" refers to a Jew who has accepted Yeshua as the Messiah. If you leave off the commonly included "Jew", then I'll accept this label. I prefer to call myself a Messianic Believer rather than a Messianic Jew, because I don't want to give people the wrong impression if I can help it. I accept the Messiah and his commands, but I don't accept Judaism. (Update 2022: Torah-keeping Christian? Pronomian Christian? Follower of Yeshua? Labels, schmabels.)
Rabbi - Maybe I teach on occasion, but I can't claim to be a master of anything, let alone Jewish theology, and that's really what most people mean by rabbi. So, no, I'm not a rabbi and have no intention of becoming one.
Legalist - I suppose it depends on how you define a legalist. If you think a legalist is someone who tries to follow the laws, especially the laws of Moses, then I guess I'm a legalist. That's not the definition that I would use, however. I say that a legalist is someone who elevates the law above the law-giver and/or the law-keeper. I do not keep the Torah for my salvation. The only power it holds in regards to eternal salvation is the power to condemn. Yeshua's atonement and resurrection took that authority away from it if we are willing to accept him. I accept his gift with faith, and keep the law only to please him and for the sake of well being, mine and everyone else's.
Polygamist - Having only one wife, and no intention of acquiring another, I can't see how this one applies. I don't support the right of man-made, civil government to meddle in marriage. I also don't support the monogamist doctrine that our western churches have inherited from Greece and Rome. If you want to have two or three or more wives in your family, it's probably a really bad idea, but it's nobody's business but yours. Maybe a better label would be poly-friendly.
I'm sure there are a hundred more labels just waiting out there for me. If you have one that you think applies, let me know. Maybe you're right.
But probably not.
People seem to have a lot of false impressions about me. In a world full of labels, it's easy to grab one that's handy and use it, and sometimes that's helpful. We generalize and stereotype because it helps us to sort out the world and deal with the plague of Too Much Information. Unfortunately, those labels never really fit anything perfectly, and they fit some things and people--yours truly, for example--less perfectly than others. If you only read one of my articles about the Torah, you might think I'm Jewish. If you only read one of my articles about polygamy, you might think I'm a rogue Mormon. If you read all of my articles, you might just have a whole fistful of labels, not all of them so benign. Let me sort some of them out for you:
Christian - If a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, then I like this label. People have different ideas about what he taught, though, so let me clarify. I believe that Jesus, whom I prefer to call by his Hebrew name of Yeshua, is the only man ever conceived as a Son of God, meaning that he was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the direct action of God. I also believe that he existed before he was conceived, and, in fact, existed before everything. He was the Voice of God that spoke the Universe into existence. He appeared as a man and an angel to the patriarchs and to Moses and Joshua. He lived a perfect, sinless life, never violating the Torah, and then, of his own free will, he was crucified by both gentiles and Jews, his blood making a perfect atonement for all the world's sin. He was raised from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and has promised to return again in physical form. I believe that he wants us to live as he lived, honoring the Torah by his love for the Father and for men. I take him seriously when he says that, so long as heaven and earth still exist, we should live and teach the Torah and the Prophets. So if my life labels me as a "little Christ" then so be it.
Jewish - As far as I'm aware, I don't have any Jewish ancestors. But then, I've only been able to trace my family back a few hundred years to the Korpers/Kerbers in 17th century Hesse-Darmstadt. On the other hand, there is an old Jewish family by the name of Korper a few hundred miles away in Hungary. I've read speculation that the Korper name came from the scribes or unit historians that accompanied Roman military units which settled in the fringes of the Empire. Some of those scribes may have been Jewish, since Jews tended to be more literate than the general population at the time. Some of them might have adopted the occupational name of Korper, and some of those might have migrated a little further north into Germany. Some big maybes there. I don't see any reason to stretch the point though, so I'm operating under the assumption that I am not of Jewish descent. I'm not sure it would make any practical difference if I am. (Update 2016: It turns out I do have some Jewish DNA, less than 1%, but its origins are so lost in the mists of family history, that it might as well not be there at all. It's irrelevant to salvation or citizenship in the nation of Israel.)
No, the other Jewish - I'm not the other Jewish, either. The religious kind, I mean. I don't recognize any inherent authority in anyone calling himself a rabbi, nor do I adhere to the teachings of the Talmud. I think that Judaism has a lot of good things going for it, but it has a lot of bad, too. The Jews are at least as far off the mark as the Catholics or the Mormons, and not as far off as some others that I might still consider brothers in the faith. I practice some common Christian traditions, such as baptism and
Flake - There might be a grain of truth in this label. I'll let you be the judge.
Messianic - The term "messianic" refers to the Messiah, and "Messianic Jew" refers to a Jew who has accepted Yeshua as the Messiah. If you leave off the commonly included "Jew", then I'll accept this label. I prefer to call myself a Messianic Believer rather than a Messianic Jew, because I don't want to give people the wrong impression if I can help it. I accept the Messiah and his commands, but I don't accept Judaism. (Update 2022: Torah-keeping Christian? Pronomian Christian? Follower of Yeshua? Labels, schmabels.)
Rabbi - Maybe I teach on occasion, but I can't claim to be a master of anything, let alone Jewish theology, and that's really what most people mean by rabbi. So, no, I'm not a rabbi and have no intention of becoming one.
Legalist - I suppose it depends on how you define a legalist. If you think a legalist is someone who tries to follow the laws, especially the laws of Moses, then I guess I'm a legalist. That's not the definition that I would use, however. I say that a legalist is someone who elevates the law above the law-giver and/or the law-keeper. I do not keep the Torah for my salvation. The only power it holds in regards to eternal salvation is the power to condemn. Yeshua's atonement and resurrection took that authority away from it if we are willing to accept him. I accept his gift with faith, and keep the law only to please him and for the sake of well being, mine and everyone else's.
Polygamist - Having only one wife, and no intention of acquiring another, I can't see how this one applies. I don't support the right of man-made, civil government to meddle in marriage. I also don't support the monogamist doctrine that our western churches have inherited from Greece and Rome. If you want to have two or three or more wives in your family, it's probably a really bad idea, but it's nobody's business but yours. Maybe a better label would be poly-friendly.
I'm sure there are a hundred more labels just waiting out there for me. If you have one that you think applies, let me know. Maybe you're right.
But probably not.
2022 note on eschatology: I generally disapprove of eschatological systems. People like it when everything fits neatly into its designated slot, but I don't think things usually work that way in the real world, including prophecy. Whatever -ist you want to put me into, call me a partial -ist.
Is Polygamy Always a Bad Idea
There are three main schools of bible-based thought regarding whether polygamy is a good or bad idea. The first, which hardly qualifies as a school of thought, says that women were created for the pleasure of men, and that men may use them or not as they please. The second says that men and women were created as equals and polygamy always leads to trouble. The third says that polygamy may not be the way that people will usually live, but that it may be appropriate and healthy under some circumstances.
While it may be true that women were created for the benefit of men (Gen 2:18, 1 Cor 11:9), it is not true that men may do whatever they please with their wives. Paul reminded us that without women, none of us would even exist (1 Cor 11:11-12). He also wrote that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. That means that we men should be willing to give up everything, even to our own lives, for the sake of our wives (Eph 5:25). We are to follow the example of Christ's daily life also, and it is clear that he treated women with the same respect with which he treated men.
We shouldn't go to the opposite extreme, either, acting as if men and women are exactly equal in all things. The Hebrew behind the term, help-meet, is ezer kenegdo, which literally means "a suitable helper or support." That term doesn't necessarily presuppose anything of authority or rank between Adam and Eve. Moses refers to God with the same word for helper, ezer (Exo 18:4, Deu 33:7, Deu 33:29). However, there is a fundamental difference between God and Eve. God chooses to be a helper at times to mankind, while Eve was created specifically to support Adam. As Paul pointed out, Eve's subordination to Adam did not begin at the Fall, but was inherent in her creation (1 Cor 11:9, 1 Tim 2:13) and evidenced by her character and mission prior to the Fall (1 Tim 2:14-15). There are other aspects of the Creation that demonstrate Adams original authority over Eve, such as the source of Eve's substance, her presentation to Adam, and her naming by Adam. Men and women are not equal in all ways. Husbands have authority over their wives in the same way that Christ has authority over the Church. While Christ willingly made himself a servant and sacrificed his own life for the Church's, there is absolutely no question that he maintains absolute authority. He doesn't force us into his will, but he makes it clear that we are expected to obey him anyway. "If you love me, keep my commandments," he said. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. Wives, obey your husbands as the Church obeys Christ.
Polygamy is obviously not a sin. There is no commandment against it in Scripture. God's best men were often polygamists and they were never reprimanded for it. In fact, God allegorically calls himself a polygamist (Jer 3:6-10, Jer 31:31-32), and claims to have rewarded David with multiple wives (2 Sam 12:8). If polygamy always caused more harm than good, then it would be a clear violation of the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Surely God would have said something about it if that were true. He isn't afraid of men that he needs to be polite and tolerant of their sins. The Israelites who came out of Egypt were polygamous (Num 3:39,43,46) and idolatrous (Exo 32:1-26). Yet God chose to kill thousands of them for their idolatry (Exo 32:28), while giving advice on how to conduct their polygamy (Deu 21:15-17). If polygamy is not always a bad thing, then it follows that it must sometimes be a good thing.
In our fallen world, there is sickness, death, war, rebellion, hatred, and foolishness.
Yeshua and Paul said that all women should normally marry, but that there are some men who will not, and some men that should not (Mat 19:12, 1 Cor 7:25-28, 1 Tim 2:15, 1 Tim 5:9-16). The birth rates of men and women are essentially equal, and in a perfect world there would be no war and no terribly dangerous work, with the result that there would be only slightly more marriable women than men. There would be no unbelievers, and therefore no need to worry about being unequally yoked. In a perfect world, a few men would have to be polygamous in order to provide husbands for all women. But in a fallen world, war, crime, and hard labor mean that men die young much more often than do women. Making matters worse, more men than women are unbelievers. That means that in order to marry a godly man, sometimes a woman must settle for someone less desirable, steal a man from another woman, or become a spinster. None of those options is compatible with God's Law. Men don't have to be or do anything special to attract a wife, because women come cheaply. Women have to resort to marketing themselves in order to attract any attention, and we all know that sex sells. Those women who, through no fault of their own, hold no special attraction for men, have no real hope of a happy and fulfilling life, because there is no reason for any man to pay attention to them.
Polygamy can address many of those problems. A woman wouldn't have to expose herself and act like a whore in order to steal a man from another woman, because the man can be shared. The value of women would increase because there would be fewer of them on the market. Men would then be placed in the position of competing for women instead of the other way around. They would be forced to become better men in order to attract a wife. Plain, infertile, and sickly women would still be able to marry because they don't have to try to be everything that a man needs. Polygamy among godly men can benefit both men and women.
I believe that there are at least two Scriptures which require polygamy among God's people and at least one which calls it a sign of repentance. The law of the levirate at times requires a man to accept a second wife, because it makes no exception for a man who is already married (Deu 25:5-10). Paul commanded younger widows to remarry, and commanded their fellow believers to accommodate them (specifically through financial support, but by implication through finding them a believing husband) (1 Tim 5:9-16), yet he also commanded them to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (1 Cor 7:39, 2 Cor 6:14). The only way to obey both commands is for some men to marry more than one wife. Isaiah prophesied that in the last days, God's people will be overcome by war, foolishness, and feminism. The first sign of repentance will be when women humble themselves by submitting themselves to godly men who are already married. (Isa 4:1)
Polygamy (by which I mean polygyny and not polyandry or polyamory) is sometimes a very good idea, and sometimes it is necessary for obedience to God.
"If you love me, keep my commandments," Yeshua said.
Addendum: How many verifiably monogamous men are there in the Bible? (By monogamous, I mean according to their status, not their doctrine.) In the strictest sense, we can't verify that anyone in the Bible was monogamous, so lowering the bar to "probably monogamous", off the top of my head I can only think of six, although I’m sure there must be others:
While it may be true that women were created for the benefit of men (Gen 2:18, 1 Cor 11:9), it is not true that men may do whatever they please with their wives. Paul reminded us that without women, none of us would even exist (1 Cor 11:11-12). He also wrote that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. That means that we men should be willing to give up everything, even to our own lives, for the sake of our wives (Eph 5:25). We are to follow the example of Christ's daily life also, and it is clear that he treated women with the same respect with which he treated men.
We shouldn't go to the opposite extreme, either, acting as if men and women are exactly equal in all things. The Hebrew behind the term, help-meet, is ezer kenegdo, which literally means "a suitable helper or support." That term doesn't necessarily presuppose anything of authority or rank between Adam and Eve. Moses refers to God with the same word for helper, ezer (Exo 18:4, Deu 33:7, Deu 33:29). However, there is a fundamental difference between God and Eve. God chooses to be a helper at times to mankind, while Eve was created specifically to support Adam. As Paul pointed out, Eve's subordination to Adam did not begin at the Fall, but was inherent in her creation (1 Cor 11:9, 1 Tim 2:13) and evidenced by her character and mission prior to the Fall (1 Tim 2:14-15). There are other aspects of the Creation that demonstrate Adams original authority over Eve, such as the source of Eve's substance, her presentation to Adam, and her naming by Adam. Men and women are not equal in all ways. Husbands have authority over their wives in the same way that Christ has authority over the Church. While Christ willingly made himself a servant and sacrificed his own life for the Church's, there is absolutely no question that he maintains absolute authority. He doesn't force us into his will, but he makes it clear that we are expected to obey him anyway. "If you love me, keep my commandments," he said. Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. Wives, obey your husbands as the Church obeys Christ.
Polygamy is obviously not a sin. There is no commandment against it in Scripture. God's best men were often polygamists and they were never reprimanded for it. In fact, God allegorically calls himself a polygamist (Jer 3:6-10, Jer 31:31-32), and claims to have rewarded David with multiple wives (2 Sam 12:8). If polygamy always caused more harm than good, then it would be a clear violation of the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Surely God would have said something about it if that were true. He isn't afraid of men that he needs to be polite and tolerant of their sins. The Israelites who came out of Egypt were polygamous (Num 3:39,43,46) and idolatrous (Exo 32:1-26). Yet God chose to kill thousands of them for their idolatry (Exo 32:28), while giving advice on how to conduct their polygamy (Deu 21:15-17). If polygamy is not always a bad thing, then it follows that it must sometimes be a good thing.
In our fallen world, there is sickness, death, war, rebellion, hatred, and foolishness.
Yeshua and Paul said that all women should normally marry, but that there are some men who will not, and some men that should not (Mat 19:12, 1 Cor 7:25-28, 1 Tim 2:15, 1 Tim 5:9-16). The birth rates of men and women are essentially equal, and in a perfect world there would be no war and no terribly dangerous work, with the result that there would be only slightly more marriable women than men. There would be no unbelievers, and therefore no need to worry about being unequally yoked. In a perfect world, a few men would have to be polygamous in order to provide husbands for all women. But in a fallen world, war, crime, and hard labor mean that men die young much more often than do women. Making matters worse, more men than women are unbelievers. That means that in order to marry a godly man, sometimes a woman must settle for someone less desirable, steal a man from another woman, or become a spinster. None of those options is compatible with God's Law. Men don't have to be or do anything special to attract a wife, because women come cheaply. Women have to resort to marketing themselves in order to attract any attention, and we all know that sex sells. Those women who, through no fault of their own, hold no special attraction for men, have no real hope of a happy and fulfilling life, because there is no reason for any man to pay attention to them.
Polygamy can address many of those problems. A woman wouldn't have to expose herself and act like a whore in order to steal a man from another woman, because the man can be shared. The value of women would increase because there would be fewer of them on the market. Men would then be placed in the position of competing for women instead of the other way around. They would be forced to become better men in order to attract a wife. Plain, infertile, and sickly women would still be able to marry because they don't have to try to be everything that a man needs. Polygamy among godly men can benefit both men and women.
I believe that there are at least two Scriptures which require polygamy among God's people and at least one which calls it a sign of repentance. The law of the levirate at times requires a man to accept a second wife, because it makes no exception for a man who is already married (Deu 25:5-10). Paul commanded younger widows to remarry, and commanded their fellow believers to accommodate them (specifically through financial support, but by implication through finding them a believing husband) (1 Tim 5:9-16), yet he also commanded them to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (1 Cor 7:39, 2 Cor 6:14). The only way to obey both commands is for some men to marry more than one wife. Isaiah prophesied that in the last days, God's people will be overcome by war, foolishness, and feminism. The first sign of repentance will be when women humble themselves by submitting themselves to godly men who are already married. (Isa 4:1)
Polygamy (by which I mean polygyny and not polyandry or polyamory) is sometimes a very good idea, and sometimes it is necessary for obedience to God.
"If you love me, keep my commandments," Yeshua said.
Addendum: How many verifiably monogamous men are there in the Bible? (By monogamous, I mean according to their status, not their doctrine.) In the strictest sense, we can't verify that anyone in the Bible was monogamous, so lowering the bar to "probably monogamous", off the top of my head I can only think of six, although I’m sure there must be others:
- Adam
- Noah
- Shem
- Japheth
- Ham
- Zechariah (in the NT)
The Dangers of First Mention
According to the Biblical Research Studies Group, the Law of First Mention is “principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine.”1 The idea is that God deliberately arranged Scripture so that the first mention of any concept or word reveals its most fundamental and overarching character. It’s a useful idea to a certain point, but very quickly becomes absurd when treated as a “Law.” Either one’s conclusions become nonsense, or they become justification for theological preconceptions. Let me give you some examples.
When God made Adam and Eve, be brought them together again, and the writer of Genesis says that this is why a man leaves his parents and is united with his wife (Gen 2:24). Yeshua went a step further and said that because God established the first marriage, no man should dare to divorce his wife without sufficient cause (Mat 19:3-9). That’s well and good. It doesn’t contradict anything else that Scripture says, and in fact is supported by God’s laws and his prophets. (See, for example, Malachi 2:16.)
There are other, less sound conclusions that we can draw from the Creation account, using the Law of First Mention:
God said that it is not good for a man to be alone (Gen 2:18), and did not create a second, celibate man. Therefore, celibacy is unwise, and all men must be married if they expect to be happy. (See Matt 19:10-12 for a refutation.)
Eve was Adam’s only wife, and because he listened to her all of mankind suffers sickness, sin, and death (Rom 5:12). Therefore, every man should have at least two wives to counter-balance the potentially unwise advice of one wife, because, as Solomon wrote, a three-fold cord is not easily broken (Ecc 4:12).
The first time someone brought a botanical offering to God, that offering was rejected (Gen 4:2-5). Therefore God does not want such offerings. (See Lev 5:11 and 27:30 for a refutation.)
The first murderer was also a farmer (Gen 4:2), and his descendants were the first to dabble in metallurgy, music, and tent-making (Gen 4:20-22). Therefore, farmers are likely to be more violent than husbandmen, and murder promotes industry and art.
All four of these ideas are contradicted by either common sense or by other Scriptures, but you can see how easy it would be to use the Law of First Mention to find support in Scripture for your own pet doctrines. The Torah, in general, and Genesis, in particular, are foundational to all of the rest of Scripture. To an extent, they inform the vocabulary and ideas found in the rest of Scripture. In fact, much of the prophets, history, poetry, and letters that make up the rest of Scripture is just commentary on the Torah and how it applied to current events of the day. In that sense, as well as in the sense of historical context, First Mention can help us to understand a point that a later writer might be trying to make. Beyond that it is as likely to lead us into a ditch as it is to help us find the path.
1 “Biblical Research Studies Group- Fourth Rule: The Law of First Mention” accessed on 10/31/2005 at http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page48.html.
When God made Adam and Eve, be brought them together again, and the writer of Genesis says that this is why a man leaves his parents and is united with his wife (Gen 2:24). Yeshua went a step further and said that because God established the first marriage, no man should dare to divorce his wife without sufficient cause (Mat 19:3-9). That’s well and good. It doesn’t contradict anything else that Scripture says, and in fact is supported by God’s laws and his prophets. (See, for example, Malachi 2:16.)
There are other, less sound conclusions that we can draw from the Creation account, using the Law of First Mention:
God said that it is not good for a man to be alone (Gen 2:18), and did not create a second, celibate man. Therefore, celibacy is unwise, and all men must be married if they expect to be happy. (See Matt 19:10-12 for a refutation.)
Eve was Adam’s only wife, and because he listened to her all of mankind suffers sickness, sin, and death (Rom 5:12). Therefore, every man should have at least two wives to counter-balance the potentially unwise advice of one wife, because, as Solomon wrote, a three-fold cord is not easily broken (Ecc 4:12).
The first time someone brought a botanical offering to God, that offering was rejected (Gen 4:2-5). Therefore God does not want such offerings. (See Lev 5:11 and 27:30 for a refutation.)
The first murderer was also a farmer (Gen 4:2), and his descendants were the first to dabble in metallurgy, music, and tent-making (Gen 4:20-22). Therefore, farmers are likely to be more violent than husbandmen, and murder promotes industry and art.
All four of these ideas are contradicted by either common sense or by other Scriptures, but you can see how easy it would be to use the Law of First Mention to find support in Scripture for your own pet doctrines. The Torah, in general, and Genesis, in particular, are foundational to all of the rest of Scripture. To an extent, they inform the vocabulary and ideas found in the rest of Scripture. In fact, much of the prophets, history, poetry, and letters that make up the rest of Scripture is just commentary on the Torah and how it applied to current events of the day. In that sense, as well as in the sense of historical context, First Mention can help us to understand a point that a later writer might be trying to make. Beyond that it is as likely to lead us into a ditch as it is to help us find the path.
1 “Biblical Research Studies Group- Fourth Rule: The Law of First Mention” accessed on 10/31/2005 at http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page48.html.
Anti-Personal Politics
I had one of those e...pi...pha...ny things last week. I finally realized why I don't understand liberals (the modern American variety, not classical liberals)...It's because they don't really exist!
Wow! Talk about fodder for a conspiracy theory.
I was talking with a friend about taxes and all the wonderful uses (NOT!) to which government puts my money when he had the audacity to disagree with me. He told me of how well his family had done over the last decade financially and asserted that their good fortune was due primarily to the economic policies of our beloved William "Slick Willie" Clinton.
Having difficulty believing that any kind of meddling the president might take upon himself could possibly have a positive effect on the economy, I asked for a specific example of Clinton's wise leadership. "Officially sanctioned racism," he replied fervently. (Although not quite in those words. I think he actually said something like "Offering a helping hand to the under-advantaged by mandating a more equitable percentage of government contracts go to minorities." Or something of that ilk.)
"Uh-huh." I said, a finger scratching the inside of my ear.
He went on to point out to me that all white people in any kind of position of authority try to keep people of color down. The only way that white people will ever give blacks or Hispanics a fair piece of the pie is if they are forced to it. I'm white. He's not.
I asked if he could remember anything I had ever said or done that would indicate a racist attitude. No, he replied. Then how could he say that all white people are racist?
"I'm not talking about you and me," he explained. "I'm talking about society in general."
I'm not white? I'm not a part of society? What is society if not more of you and me?
"Let's not make this personal," he said.
What could possibly be more personal than hiring men with guns to take my money to finance a program to thwart my supposed nazi business tactics?
"But I'm not doing anything, I just voted." Of course you are. You voted for him, didn't you? You've publicly supported his policies, haven't you? You took that money from his hired goons didn't you?
The problem here is not racism or even economic policy. The problem is that people don't seem to understand that the those they see and talk to every day really exist. Politics is for real. The guns that will accompany the men who will force me from my home if I refuse to financially support the racist policies of affirmative action are real. When laws are passed, those laws affect real people. The next time you vote for something or someone who promises to use government force to right some alleged wrong, remember that you are the one behind the trigger and your next door neighbor is at the end of the barrel.
Without you and me there is no society.
I like my friend. He's a pretty good guy. He just hasn't quite grasped cause and effect.
Anarchy and the Christian Government
I dislike the word "anarchy". It's ambiguous. To one person it's a political theory characterized by idealized natural law, cooperation, and brotherhood. To another it's a nightmare of chaos and violence in which the strong enslave the weak and take what they want by force.
The original Greek word anarchos translates to "no ruler". According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "anarchy" refers to "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" or the "absence of order". And indeed, this is what most people have in mind when they use it. They think of slavery and incessant warfare; they think of Beirut or Somalia, not Utopia. Unfortunately, like so many English words, "anarchy" has two, opposing meanings. The same dictionary entry lists this as an alternate meaning: "a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government". In other words, the political philosophy commonly called anarchy describes a society in which no one rules over anyone else: each person is free to pursue their own interests without interference. The essence of modern anarchy is voluntary socialism, not unrestrained violence.
In reality, neither could ever exist for long in a world of humans. Both states are contrary to human nature. People are naturally selfish and are almost always looking for a way to get an unfair advantage over everyone else. Yet they are also social creatures; they require interaction with their fellows to exist happily. Eventually they tire of their oppressors and form permanent governments to promote their corporate interests. Anarchy just couldn't happen unless it were forced, and then it would no longer be anarchy. And so, I'm sure you can understand my frustration when people equate libertarianism to anarchy.
Libertarianism is not anarchy (I apologize to those self-described anarchists for my profane use of the word throughout this essay; I use it in its more base sense to more effectively convey my meaning to those most opposed to my own philosophy); minarchy might be a better term. Libertarians are generally rational creatures who understand that with liberty comes responsibility, and that at times people must be forced to accept responsibility. The current state of affairs in America in which citizens are forced to accept responsibility where they have no liberty or are offered liberty but denied responsibility will devolve into chaos long before a libertarian society would do so. The former is slavery while the latter is hedonism, neither of which is compatible with libertarianism.
A slave must work for others and is not allowed to make his own choices in matters of personal morality. In the United States, for one-half of the year you work for others under the threat of violence: if you choose not to work for my benefit, the sheriff will remove you from your home and possibly imprison you. Also in the United States, by claiming some underprivileged or victimized status you are free to kill, steal, and destroy without fear of reprisal. In some cases, if you refuse to live off the stolen lives of others, organizations like Child Protective Services may threaten to take your children.
According to the Apostle Paul the role of government is to be a terror to evil, and so far as government confines itself to that role for which God has ordained it, it does well (Romans 13:1-5). But when it steps beyond those bounds, assuming authority which God has not granted it, government becomes a terror to both the wicked and the righteous. And is that not the anarchy that we fear so much? The rule of whim rather than the rule of law? From this we Christians must ask if the role of government then is to enforce righteousness. (Thanks, Christlib!)
Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. I would extend that thought to say that all of the Law (by the "Law" I mean the laws given by Moses and codified in first five books of the Bible) was made for man and not man for the Law. Paul wrote that God gave the Law to highlight our failings and make God's righteousness evident (Romans 3:19-31). "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
So the Law is important, but it is not all important. To make enforcement of the Law the central purpose of our lives is to commit the sin of the Pharisees whom Jesus called hypocrites. It is not an object to be worshipped, but a template to be applied to our lives as we are able.
Like the law and everything else that God has given us, government is a tool to be used to our benefit, not a master to enslave us. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I am imperfect. I understand God's Word and His Law imperfectly. Would it be right to give me the power to interpret that Law and enforce my interpretation onto you? No matter how wise a leader may be, he will not live forever and someone else will have to take his place. Will that person be as wise? But they will inherit the same power and more, for government does not willingly give up authority, but jealously guards what it has and constantly accumulates more. To give today's wise ruler the authority to enforce his ideas of righteousness, is to give tomorrow's fool the power to enforce his. Washington knew this and refused the power he could have had. To allow government to master us is to invite the anarchy which looms imminent under the current marriage of slavery and hedonism.
There is only one political philosophy in America today that offers to limit government to its God-ordained role: libertarianism. No, not all people who call themselves libertarians are good people, let alone righteous people. But they at least avoid the hypocrisy of others who seek to use government force to enslave the rest of us to their own hedonism. They are willing to hold themselves responsible for their liberty. More importantly, they are willing to hold you responsible for your liberty.
It is a good thing to live your life according to the Law, but it is not the function of the Church or of the Government or of anyone else to force you to do so. It is a choice you must make on your own, and that you must not allow others to make for you.
The original Greek word anarchos translates to "no ruler". According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, "anarchy" refers to "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority" or the "absence of order". And indeed, this is what most people have in mind when they use it. They think of slavery and incessant warfare; they think of Beirut or Somalia, not Utopia. Unfortunately, like so many English words, "anarchy" has two, opposing meanings. The same dictionary entry lists this as an alternate meaning: "a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government". In other words, the political philosophy commonly called anarchy describes a society in which no one rules over anyone else: each person is free to pursue their own interests without interference. The essence of modern anarchy is voluntary socialism, not unrestrained violence.
In reality, neither could ever exist for long in a world of humans. Both states are contrary to human nature. People are naturally selfish and are almost always looking for a way to get an unfair advantage over everyone else. Yet they are also social creatures; they require interaction with their fellows to exist happily. Eventually they tire of their oppressors and form permanent governments to promote their corporate interests. Anarchy just couldn't happen unless it were forced, and then it would no longer be anarchy. And so, I'm sure you can understand my frustration when people equate libertarianism to anarchy.
Libertarianism is not anarchy (I apologize to those self-described anarchists for my profane use of the word throughout this essay; I use it in its more base sense to more effectively convey my meaning to those most opposed to my own philosophy); minarchy might be a better term. Libertarians are generally rational creatures who understand that with liberty comes responsibility, and that at times people must be forced to accept responsibility. The current state of affairs in America in which citizens are forced to accept responsibility where they have no liberty or are offered liberty but denied responsibility will devolve into chaos long before a libertarian society would do so. The former is slavery while the latter is hedonism, neither of which is compatible with libertarianism.
A slave must work for others and is not allowed to make his own choices in matters of personal morality. In the United States, for one-half of the year you work for others under the threat of violence: if you choose not to work for my benefit, the sheriff will remove you from your home and possibly imprison you. Also in the United States, by claiming some underprivileged or victimized status you are free to kill, steal, and destroy without fear of reprisal. In some cases, if you refuse to live off the stolen lives of others, organizations like Child Protective Services may threaten to take your children.
According to the Apostle Paul the role of government is to be a terror to evil, and so far as government confines itself to that role for which God has ordained it, it does well (Romans 13:1-5). But when it steps beyond those bounds, assuming authority which God has not granted it, government becomes a terror to both the wicked and the righteous. And is that not the anarchy that we fear so much? The rule of whim rather than the rule of law? From this we Christians must ask if the role of government then is to enforce righteousness. (Thanks, Christlib!)
Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. I would extend that thought to say that all of the Law (by the "Law" I mean the laws given by Moses and codified in first five books of the Bible) was made for man and not man for the Law. Paul wrote that God gave the Law to highlight our failings and make God's righteousness evident (Romans 3:19-31). "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
So the Law is important, but it is not all important. To make enforcement of the Law the central purpose of our lives is to commit the sin of the Pharisees whom Jesus called hypocrites. It is not an object to be worshipped, but a template to be applied to our lives as we are able.
Like the law and everything else that God has given us, government is a tool to be used to our benefit, not a master to enslave us. George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I am imperfect. I understand God's Word and His Law imperfectly. Would it be right to give me the power to interpret that Law and enforce my interpretation onto you? No matter how wise a leader may be, he will not live forever and someone else will have to take his place. Will that person be as wise? But they will inherit the same power and more, for government does not willingly give up authority, but jealously guards what it has and constantly accumulates more. To give today's wise ruler the authority to enforce his ideas of righteousness, is to give tomorrow's fool the power to enforce his. Washington knew this and refused the power he could have had. To allow government to master us is to invite the anarchy which looms imminent under the current marriage of slavery and hedonism.
There is only one political philosophy in America today that offers to limit government to its God-ordained role: libertarianism. No, not all people who call themselves libertarians are good people, let alone righteous people. But they at least avoid the hypocrisy of others who seek to use government force to enslave the rest of us to their own hedonism. They are willing to hold themselves responsible for their liberty. More importantly, they are willing to hold you responsible for your liberty.
It is a good thing to live your life according to the Law, but it is not the function of the Church or of the Government or of anyone else to force you to do so. It is a choice you must make on your own, and that you must not allow others to make for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)