3/04/2014

Political Precedent and German Homeschoolers

The internet was aswhirl today with the case of the German homeschoolers whose appeal was declined by the Supreme Court and then, fairly quickly, the case was 'dropped' by the Department of Homeland Security. The first decision sent all of the homeschoolers moaning in depression, the second into raptures of joy.

One subtext of the reactions was confusion. 'Why', they seemed to be asking, 'would the administration bother to go to all the trouble to try to deport them, including appealing decisions etc all the way up to the  Supreme Court, and then drop the whole case?"

My answer is that that makes perfect sense, looked at from their perspective. This case, to this administration, was never about one family. One more illegal immigration family? Who cares.

This case was about power and political philosophy. Homeschooling is an attack at the root of government power. Not one homeschooling family, but the idea. The German government makes this plain; spelled out in black and white in their court cases and administrative pronouncements. Homeschooling cannot be allowed in Germany because someone might end up thinking differently then the state would have them think. Verbotten. Hitler first made this marvelous discovery and the German governments since have followed in his footsteps. Heil Merkel.

So the German governments request that this family be sent back makes perfect sense. They don't care less about the state of education of the children (they have acknowledged that homeschoolers are well educated) and they don't really care if one family is raised outside the governments control (after all, German's who live outside Germany have their children in all sorts of systems). No, their decision to prosecute this family made sense in the same way the Berlin wall made sense. It's OK to have people try to opt out, but it must be seen to be costly. If you make it easy everyone will leave.

Domenic Johansson [1]
And the Obama administration's decision to prosecute made sense. They, like the German government, believe in government uber alles. The government is big brother, father, and nanny. The government is be all and end all. It must be seen as the solution to every problem.

But for both of them there was no actual need to have the family sent back. Imagine the scene: Fox News and every Christian, Homeschooling, and Libertarian blogger would be there as the US government thugs escorted the crying family onto the plane, and as the German government thugs (now there's a scene that would bring back history) escorted them off, stripping the children from their parents, and sending them away to the  Schullag Archipegelo that is statist German education.

No, this is perfect. The law is in place. Homeschooling is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked whenever government decrees that anyone is straying too far out of line. And yet, missing their television scene, the sheeple will keep sleeping.

Congratulations Team Obama, you might have lost the Ukraine Scenario, but you won a marvelous victory over a German homeschooling family. We are all so proud of you.

[1] Child seized from a plane leaving Sweden and stripped from his parents for the horrendous crime of being homeschooled.



Note to the Canadian Human Rights Commission: This article may cause people to have contempt for certain groups, including those who murder innocent children, 214th District Court Judge Jose Longoria, and members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I support The Constitution Party. Items copied from Life Site News are: Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

2/17/2014

Blueprint for Theocracy

 A review of

Blueprint for Theocracy
by

James C. Sanford

I believe that this book should be on the shelf of every theonomist. Make no mistake, it is an anti-theonomic book. The author has secular, anti-Christian presuppositions. And he makes no bones about it, making no claim to neutrality, and bringing his views forward, albeit somtimes subtly, on every page.
But from a historical postion this book is a treasure. Especially for those new to the theonomic/reconstruction movement the history is invaluable. You will disagree with him as to values, motives, tactics, and even whether a given battle was a success or not, but to have the battle outlined in the way they are is invaluable.
Indeed in some sections of the book the only thing that might separate this book from a textbook on reconstructionism is the  use of mocking single quotes around strategic words.
There are sections of the book, of course, where the author's presuppositions blind him to even the history of the issue. But, for a book of this type I found these to be amazingly rare. A must-read for the theonomist who wishes to both know their enemy and to know their history.

Don't even think about it

I'm part of this book review program. They send me books, I write reviews. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  Here's my most recent review, and then I will add some 'theonomist' type thoughts:
All the time I pick up a book, or get sent it for review, and the title hints one thing, the synopsis hints at another, and the actual book, well, its a third thing entirely. Not so 'Don't Even Think About It.' by SARAH MLYNOWSKI. It promised what it delivered. It was a light, fast moving, and very teenagers-at-public-high school-ish. My only complaint in that direction would be the cover, which really should (given the plot) include a boy. It's mostly a chick-flick, but only mostly. There's some boy bits too.
No teenage book can really (if they wish to avoid an X rating) include all of the real thoughts of teenagers, and this book was written by a female, but it was a valiant try: and definitely gave a serious taste, sordid, sexual, and all, of what those thoughts no doubt are.
One thing that the book avoided, in a marvelous fashion, was the 'solution' to the 'techno' issue. Really good hard sci-fi spends pages guessing at, and then explaining, exactly what the techno issue is, how it works, how to fix it, avoid it, or perfect it. Poor science fiction, like, say, Star Trek, waves their  hands and makes up a techno-sounding explanation. Comedic science fiction does the same thing, but with wierder sounding techno-babble. This book, a chick flick, does nothing of the sort. The explanation comes in a one sentence package: it came with our flu shot, which must have been tainted somehow.
Which leaves the readers (the true sci-fi fans  having thrown the book down in disgust, assuming they ever picked it up which, given the cover, they wouldn't ever do) able to focus on the issue of boyfriend/girlfriend, disfunctional parents, obnoxious or surprisingly nice teachers, and the like. Who kisses who is, after all, much more important then exactly how one gains telepathy, no?
All in all a book that delivers what it promises.
The value, if value there be, in reading a 'modern teen' book is, of course, that  you get some idea of how the modern teen thinks, feels, acts, etc. At least if the book was well written. Ironically at the same time as I was reading this book, I was reading a book written about a kid of about the same age, written back in the 70's. Also sci-fi. The differences were rather telling.
The old author, no Christian, still projected old values into the future. I think if those old sci-fi writers were allowed to actually see our age, the dramatic change in sexual ethics is one thing that would truly surprise them. Emails and all, altho they didn't guess them, might just make sense. But they would probably think out society had lost its moral  moorings if they ever bothered to pick up a teen fiction book.

1/09/2014

Always be Open


the-destruction-of-sodom-1857.jpg!xlMedium

Recently I have had some discussions about  a doctrine often called full quiver. I am 'full quiver' and I believe the doctrine to be an integral part of marriage, to the extent we included it in our betrothal covenant for my oldest son and his wife. The statement I made, that caused quite a bit of discussion, was this:

Godly Married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

In order to address the objections that have been raised to that statement, I am going to take it, one phrase at a time, and explain why I believe what I do about, well, about the statement :)

Rebekkah and the servantGodly married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

Godly. I want to be careful, right at the beginning, to disclaim something that some people might believe when I use the word ‘Godly’. They might think that I mean ‘Christian’. That, in some way, I am saying that Jews, Muslims, Budhists, Animists and Atheists, etc, are exempt. I’m not.

What I am saying is that this requirement comes from God, and reflects God. And so, to the extent we accept it and live it out, we reflect God… even if we are atheists. Oh, I’m not saying that this makes them righteous, or that it saves them… just that God uses it to reflect truth about Himself.

Godly married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

It should go without saying but, unfortunately, doesn’t nowadays, that I am talking about married couples: couples in covenant with each other for life. Mind you, I don’t believe that this means that an unmarried couple becomes more righteous when they engage in sex *with* birth control. Quite the opposite. The sex (being outside of marriage) is wrong, and the birth control is wrong too. When God said, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ he had in mind married couples. But that doesn’t mean that failing to multiply in some sense justifies fornication or adultery.

mother-jeanne-nursing-her-baby-1908.jpg!xlMediumGodly Married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

I know that this phrase doesn’t come next, but I thought I would get it out of the way. Not because it is unimportant, but because it is the key to the entire issue.

Scripture treats children as ‘a blessing’. Indeed they are one of the most frequently named blessings in Scripture. Most Christians know this but, if not, we will list many of the key passages later in this article.

 Godly married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

I know, I know, I’m going backwards here. But this part of the sentence needs, not so much a defense, as an explanation. It seems that every time I or another full quiver person talks about this issue these words (however we express them) are misunderstood. ‘Be open’ becomes, in their mind, ‘try to have as many children as you can’.

This is not what I, or any full quiver person I have read or talked to, is promoting. To be crude, I believe that a Godly married couple will have lots of sex, at lots of times, very casually, naturally, and eagerly. I do not believe that they have to go out of their way to ‘make children’. They don’t have to figure out the woman’s fertile time of month, abstain before hand, make love on the right day, using an approved position, etc, etc.

They are to behave naturally… without trying to *stop* the children that come naturally from the activity. Of course, that is a tautology, since there is nothing natural about any form of birth control. Even Natural Family Planning, which is sometimes touted as a ‘natural’ method, is horribly unnatural. The very biology of both the man and the woman make the woman’s fertile period the most desired time for sex… so to deliberately abstain during that time is unnatural squared.

And we certainly don’t mean that the couple who, try how they might, can’t have children are somehow sinning!! There is nothing in anything we believe or teach which implies that. We are not talking about a certain number of children, but of an attitude. If God gives one, or God gives a thousand children, we need to be open to however many He gives.

children with kiteGodly married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

Now we come, finally, to the heart of the issue for many objectors. They are fine having children. They even would join in criticism, perhaps, against those selfish couples who choose to have no children. But they don’t think that the openness should extend as far as ‘always’. They want to be able to be open to not having children, some of the time, to be open to only having  a certain number of children. They would like this sentence to read:

 Godly married couples should SOMETIMES be open to the blessing of children.

This, in their opinion, strikes the right balance. This allows children to be a good thing, a blessing, but also allows a couple not to be too blessed. This allows us to have children… but not yet. To have children… but not too many. To have children… but not right now, when it would be awkward, expensive, dangerous, or annoying.

And it allows the couple to be ‘done’. To have done their duty, but to not have too much duty. This is what they think Scripture teaches… or at least allows. Few of them attempt an exegetical defense of this exact wording.

Godly married couples should NEVER be open to the blessing of children.

This is another of the possibilities for how a married couple should behave, but many of our critics, at least those who are Christians, are uncomfortable with this. The passages are too hard to ignore this blatantly. If someone seriously commits themselves to never having children, well, they are not only weird, but probably also sinning (see the note on ‘should’ below).

peasant-children-1890.jpg!BlogGodly married couples should ALWAYS be open to the blessing of children.

This is what we believe Scripture teaches, but many Christians believe that this is too harsh, too unloving, to judgmental and, quite frankly, too dangerous. This eliminates any control, any timing, any limits. The modern Christian rejects this possibility: but we believe it is the one God commands and blesses.

We will explain why we believe Scripture teaches this below, after we deal with another hard issue in our statement:

William_Frederick_Yeames_-_And_when_did_you_last_see_your_father-_-_Google_Art_ProjectGodly married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

We say that Godly married couples ‘should’ always be open to the blessing of children. But ‘Is this,’ our opponents ask, ‘something that is a direct command of God?'.

Unfortunately for our discussions, I don’t believe in that question. Oh, I believe in direct commands (and this is one), and I believe in direct prohibitions (which, as birth control isn’t mentioned, this isn’t one)… but I don’t think that is where our obedience to God stops, or even starts.

We have a phrase in our family for obedience. A definition. For obedience. It goes like this: “To immediately and cheerfully carry out the expressed and unexpressed wishes of those in authority over you.”

A Christian's goal in life should not be to merely obey God’s overt commands (those they cannot wiggle out of) and avoid his overt prohibitions (ditto); but to do God’s will. To know and do God’s will.

So here, with this word ‘should’, I do not mean ‘we have found an overt command which specifically states that Modern American Gentile Christians must always avoid birth control.’ We have found, instead, commands given to all of humanity, frequent blessings, and significant metaphors.... which, together, lead us to an understanding of God's will on this issue. His will being clear, our response should also be clear.

All in the next section, so let’s move on… or, rather, return to the subject we started earlier:

225px-The_Child_MotherGodly married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

Why do we believe that the Godly married couple should ALWAYS be open to the blessing of children? Let us count the ways:

1) Because God has commanded us to be fruitful and multiply:

Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

— This command was given to ‘male and female’ at the very creation of the Earth. These are typically called ‘creation ordinances’ and express God’s will as to the very nature of our creation. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, part of the Mosaic code, or a law given only to Jews. It was given pre-sin, to a perfect people… thus why would Christ overrule it?

And it was not merely the 'condition' at the start of creation, but a command. The very first command they were given. The primordial command, to a sinless people, by their creator, on the day of their creation. Sound important yet?

Genesis 9:1  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 

Genesis 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

—The same command gets repeated to Noah and his sons. This time post-fall and post-flood. These are typically called ‘Noahide’ commandments, and, again, pre-date the Mosaic code. So we have the primordial command: repeated.

Genesis 35:11  And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

-- And then God repeats the command to Jacob. 'Be fruitful and multiply'. Sounds like God is serious about this.

 Jeremiah 29:6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.

— This command was given to God’s people when they were living in a foreign land. Thus lest anyone think (in the face of all evidence) that the prior two commands were given to Jews living in the promised land, for some reason connected to the promised land, here we have the same command given to Jews living in exile. And dealing with their time in exile, and the place of exile. They are to beget children, be increased, and not be diminished: there. In the land of exile. Far from the promised land.

Titus 2:4-5 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

—This command only tangentially addresses the issue of having children (one cannot love children one does not have) but it is also an important command because of the warning that is attached to it. The passage warns that, if it is not obeyed: ‘the word of God [will] be [] blasphemed.’

Another article, perhaps, should be written on the many ways that the Word of God is blasphemed nowadays… and linking that to the lack of these very traits in our young women. Who for the most part are not married (thus not loving their husbands or obeying them), not having children (thus not loving them), not keeping any home, not discreet, not chaste, and not good.

 1 Timothy 5:14-15 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

For some are already turned aside after Satan.

--This command carries a double whammy. First of all, it is a NT command, given to a Gentile church. Any idea that one might have had (despite the evidence) that childbearing was an Old Testament ordinance, intended for Jews living in the promised land, should be put to rest here. Gentile Christians, after the resurrection, after the great commission, living in a pagan land… are commanded to bear children.

And this passage also carries a warning. Paul notes that some who have not obeyed this command are ‘already turned aside after Satan’. He says that following his admonition here will avoid giving occasion for the adversary to 'speak reproachfully'.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

--This is, perhaps, the most dramatic command in Scripture regarding childbearing. While it is not exactly clear what 'saved in childbearing' means, the phrase is still a dramatic one. The passage makes it clear that the woman is to learn in silence, and why. It speaks of her having been decieved. And then it concludes with the dramatic, if difficult to understand conclusion, "she shall be saved in childbearing." And we will let that end our section on commands.

at-summer-1939.jpg!xlMedium 2) Because God expresses his blessing via fruitfulness:

Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

--We notice that the very first ‘command’ to childbearing can also be read as a blessing of childbearing. That the first blessing God gave the new couple was that they would be fruitful and multiply. As if God thought that this was a good thing.

 Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

--Indeed the second command to childbearing can also be read as a blessing of childbearing.

Jeremiah 23:3  And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. 

-- Someone with more knowledge of prophecy than I have will have to tell me what this refers to, but it seems to me to be a future restoration of Israel into the promised land.Or perhaps the church? But regardless, having been driven out and then brought back in, God repeats His blessing: they shall be fruitful and increase.

Leviticus 26:9  For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Genesis 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Genesis 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

 Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Gen_24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

Genesis 26:3-4 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;

And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

Genesis 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.

Genesis 28:3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;

Genesis 28:13-14 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 49:25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

Deuteronomy 1:11 (The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!)

Deuteronomy 7:13-14 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

peasant-boys-1880.jpg!xlMediumDeuteronomy 28:1-4 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.

Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.

Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

Deuteronomy 33:24 And of Asher he said, Let Asher be blessed with children; let him be acceptable to his brethren, and let him dip his foot in oil.

1 Samuel 2:20-21 And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The LORD give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the LORD. And they went unto their own home.

And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the LORD.

1Chronicles 26:4-5 Moreover the sons of Obededom were, Shemaiah the firstborn, Jehozabad the second, Joah the third, and Sacar the fourth, and Nethaneel the fifth,

Ammiel the sixth, Issachar the seventh, Peulthai the eighth: for God blessed him.

Job 42:12-13 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. He had also seven sons and three daughters.

 Psalms 107:38 He blesseth them also, so that they are multiplied greatly; and suffereth not their cattle to decrease.

children playing Proverbs 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

 Isaiah_51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

Heb 6:13-14 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

Hebrews 6:14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

Genesis 29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.

Genesis 30:22 And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb.

Deuteronomy 7:13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

--Again, and again, and again we see the blessings of God of an open womb. How then those that would deliberately close the womb? That would spill the seed meant to grow in that womb?

Psalms 127:3-5 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

--Children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is His reward. What a powerful statement! And then we read that they are 'like arrows in the hand of a mighty man' and that that man will will not be ashamed but will speak with the enemies in the gate. The gate, the place where the city is ruled. Because of his many sons, the Godly man will sit there without shame.

Psalms 128:1-6 A Song of degrees. Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways.

For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.

Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.

Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD.

The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.

Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel.

--The Godly man: the man that fears the Lord and walks in his ways. This man will have a wife like a fruitful vine, and children around his table. That is the way the Lord will bless the man that fears him. Wow.

How then the opponents of full-quiver? How then those that think that some blessings are enough? That the blessing of children should be limited by time, place, or number? Or kind??

baby-reaching-for-an-apple-1893.jpg!Blog3) Because the holy men and women of old saw children as a blessing, and childlessness as a curse.

1 Samuel 1:5-6 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.

And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb.

Genesis 30:2 And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?

 Genesis 30:13 And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher.

spanking-norman-rockwell14) Because God saw barrenness as a curse.

Luke 1:36-37 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Isaiah 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

Genesis_20:18 For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife.

Hosea 9:14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

2Samuel 6:20-23 Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

And David said unto Michal, It was before the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD.

And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

young-moorish-woman-nursing-her-child-1850.jpg!xlMediumGodly Married couples should always be open to the blessing of children.

So, then, here is where I believe we stand. God had given us a command to have children. He, and His people, have labeled children a blessing, and the lack of children as a curse. These blessings, curses, and commands, range throughout the entire Scriptures, from old to new, from Genesis to Revelation.

I do not believe there is any logic, therefore, in saying that a couple should only be open to ‘some’ children. If having children is a commanded blessing, and not having them is a curse, then I don’t think there is any Biblical logic in saying ‘I would rather have God’s curse right now than God’s blessing.” If children are a blessing, then each child is a blessing. If one has seven children, and says, ‘I am done, it is enough’, then one is rejecting that eighth child. Who knows who that child would have been?

The idea of ‘always’ is implicit in the very nature of the word ‘blessing’. We may, from time to time, joke with the idea of ‘too much blessing’, particularly when dealing with the ‘blessings’ that other people give us, or a garden that seems dedicated toward producing an infinite amount of zucchini, but we know, or should know, that these jokes do not apply to God. We even sing about it: comparing ‘raindrops of mercy’ with ‘showers of blessing’. We take something that is almost the very definition of ‘too much’ (getting caught out in a rain shower) and make the obvious point that, when it comes to the blessings of God, the shower is not ‘too much’.

And this is no minor issue. Even leaving aside the huge tracts of Scriptures speaking of the blessing of children, the curse of barrenness, or the commands to have children, there is the fact that God, Himself, directly links children to the very reason for marriage.

 Malachi 2:14-15 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

We see here that God counts it as treason against one’s wife when a Godly seed is not sought. He states that children are, from the beginning, part and parcel of marriage. Even before we read of Adam being given a wife he was (or, they were) given the command to be fruitful and multiply. Even before we read of God pronouncing the words ‘it is not good for man to be alone’ we read of the blessing of fruitfulness. And here in Malachi He repeats Himself: he made the two one that he might seek a Godly seed.
"It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the ` scientific' production of human souls.

Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee's report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be 'careful and restrained' is preposterous."

The Washington Post, March 22, 1931
As quoted in 'The Baby War'
An argument from church history can never be but a capstone on a Biblical argument, but it should be strongly noted that the idea that it is OK for married people to use birth control is a new one. The movement did not really even gain any force until around 1930 or so. 'Coincidentally' the push for birth control in the church began at the same time as so much of the feminist movement was beginning to gain traction. Obviously feminism and full quiver are ardent enemies. Society cannot support both full quiver (and nursing) women and an ideology of ‘working’ women, ‘women’s equality’, and the like. A nursing or pregnant woman is not ‘equal’ when it comes to the ability to do wage slave work.

Often when this issue is raised verses are brought forward seeming to show an ‘exception’ to the idea of full quiver. And let me be clear, there are exceptions. But they are exceptions at the source, as it were. Nowhere in Scripture is a married couple commanded to abstain from sexual relations and thus from children: far less commanded to use birth control (and, yes, birth control was known in the Scriptures: see God’s judgment against Onan).

At least twice in Scripture the Lord warns against marrying. Once is in I Corinthians 7 where, because of a time of special distress, unmarried Christians are counseled against marrying: if they have the special gift of continency. Even there, however, they are not told they will sin if they were to marry. They are allowed to marry, and commanded to marry if they struggle with fornication. But, if not, they are told it will be easier on them if they do not marry.

The other time is when the prophet Jeremiah was, specifically, called not to marry and have children while living in the land of Israel:

Jeremiah 16:1-4 The word of the LORD came also unto me, saying,

Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons or daughters in this place.

For thus saith the LORD concerning the sons and concerning the daughters that are born in this place, and concerning their mothers that bare them, and concerning their fathers that begat them in this land;

They shall die of grievous deaths; they shall not be lamented; neither shall they be buried; but they shall be as dung upon the face of the earth: and they shall be consumed by the sword, and by famine; and their carcases shall be meat for the fowls of heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.

… as a prophecy to the nation of Israel of the judgment of God. As a prophecy that the people, and all their offspring, would be utterly destroyed in the land as a result of their disobedience to God. So this particular command, to one particular person, as part of a rather horrific prophecy, can hardly be seen as normative for us.


The other ‘exception’ is similar. Ironically, in bringing this prophecy forward, the opponents of full quiver miss the point of the prophecy in its Biblical context. Christ is speaking here to a people who knew, and understood, the incredible blessing of children. Who treated having a wife and children as a command. This prophecy only makes sense in this context:

Luke 23:29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

In saying, “The days are coming” Christ draws a dramatic contrast between those days and the normal day. Throughout history a bearing womb and sucking breasts were considered dramatic blessings. So it was a shocking thing to hear a prophecy where children were not a blessing. But the context makes the issue clear:

 Luke 23:28-31 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.

 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.

Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

Far from saying that children were not a blessing, Jesus was prophesying a time of great grief, when children would be killed. Of course such a time would be hard on the women who bore those children. But, far from teaching that the children themselves were not a blessing this passage is teaching that the death of children is not a blessing. A man in our area ran over his own eight year old son. Emotionally he would be better off, today, had he never had that son to run over. But what perverted mind would claim that this is because not having children is a good thing? It is the very nature of a good thing that losing it causes grief. The greater the good thing, the greater the grief. Christ portrays this as an extremely great grief, thus implies that children are among the greatest of good things!

Children are blessings. They are the mark of the Godly man. They are the heritage of God. At least, they were, until our society rolled around. In our society the church has proclaimed God's blessing a nuisance, a bother... relegating them to back rooms and special classes. And allowed them to be murdered, or at the very least 'prevented'.

--

For those interested in further information on this subject, particuarly in the light of church history, here are a couple of reviews of films on the subject:

http://www.perseveronews.com/birth-control-how-did-we-get-here-a-review/

http://www.perseveronews.com/the-baby-war-defenders-and-defectors-a-review/

--

Written by Vaughn Ohlman

 

11/25/2013

A Design Flaw

I was conversing over on NLQ with a woman about the issue of women in the military, and whether or not they should be in combat. Since it is my view that women shouldn’t be in the military at all, I don’t really have a dog in that hunt. I was primarily there to correct a false impression that some seemed to have, namely that Ladies Against Feminism, and people like myself, were Ok with women in the military, just not ok with them being in combat.

That was an insane position, the people at NLQ said, and I agree.

But my position, per the NLQ folks, is even more insane. I don’t believe that women should be in the military at all. Not in combat, not in non-combat.  I believe that women should be keepers at home, wives and mothers, not fooling around in combat boots or MASH units.

My position is based on the idea that God has designed women to be wives and mothers. That that was the point of their original creation.

My position was received with unmixed incredulity, but one woman posed a particularly insightful question. Not exactly posed as a question, but I’ll take it as such:

So... God designed women to do something that only a subset of women have done in all of recorded history? A contradictory record which includes the book on which you base your belief in that design?
That's... some really bad engineering there.

When I get a question, or an insightful comment, that is representative of a whole host of similar questions of comments, I like to make it into a full post. That way I can do a full job of answering it, and give a location for post-comments that focuses specifically on the issue concerned.

Before we move on to the logical and theological issues here I think it would be good to deal with a linguistic issue. There is kind of a trick statement in the middle of this ‘question’. She uses the phrase ‘only a subset’. Now, as someone who grew up with what was euphemistically called ‘the new math’ some forty odd years ago I am familiar with the term ‘subset’. And she uses it very accurately here.

But unfortunately the use here leaves a connotation floating around that is not justified by the words. Let us be clear. All of something is a subset of it. An odd subset, granted, but a subset. At the same time, 99.9% of something is subset of it. So the phrase ‘only a subset’ is really not a helpful phrase.

We know what she means, of course. At least, we have two possibilities. One possibility, the most sneaky, is that she means ‘less then 100%’. That would fit with what is called a ‘proper subset’. Under this definition if only one woman, ever, on the entire planet, failed to fulfill her Biblical role this would mean that ‘only a subset’ of women filled their role.

What the term implies, however, to the casual ear, is ‘less then half’. That is not a correct use of the term, of course, but it is what the words ‘only’ and ‘subset’ go together to produce as an impression. A similar term would be ‘only a fraction’… which is, mathematically, a meaningless term since all numbers are fractions of some sort.

So now she and I, if we are to have a factual discussion, need to argue over whether she meant ‘all’ or ‘some’. Throughout history have a majority of women fulfilled *all* of the role they were designed for as women? No. In fact I think the number there would be zero. No Earthly woman has ever fulfilled all, 100%, every single jot and tittle, of her role as a woman. Catholics would have us believe Mary did, but I am a protestant so I am not required to believe that impossible statement.

But if she means ‘some’ surely she cannot be serious. Surely she cannot be suggesting that the majority of women never fulfilled any of their designed role at all? That they were never obedient to their husbands and fathers, that they never fulfilled their sexual role, that they never bore any children, never trained those children, never kept the house, were never modest in their dress, etc. Etc. Surely it would be an amazing feat for any woman to have succeeded in failing at all of that all the time for their entire life? I mean, unless they were murdered in the womb, and even then, well, God knows.

But let us take her at the core of what might have been her meaning.[1] Let us take the basic ‘wife and mother and keeper at home’ role. Does she really think that, throughout history, the majority of women have been non-wives, non-mothers, and non-keepers at home? If so I think she is rather ignorant of history and demographics.

But, leaving aside which of the various things she could have meant her let us deal with her point. If even one woman, at one time in history, failed to perfectly fulfill her role is that an indication of a design flaw?

That depends. You see the word ‘design’ when applied to a human being means something different than when we apply it to an inanimate object, let’s say a shovel.

If I try to dig with a shovel and I can’t dig, that may well be a design flaw. If I am digging in the proper material (and not, say, cement, for which the shovel wasn’t designed), and using the shovel in the proper fashion (not holding it upside down or sideways, etc.) and it won’t dig… or even if a proper subset of shovels won’t dig, then that shovel has, indeed, been badly designed. Did the shovel break when I tried to dig nice soft soil? Then perhaps the materials are at fault. Did the little put-your-foot-here thingy cut my foot? Then that part was not well designed (or I should have been wearing shoes).

So the rule is that we say something was poorly designed when we used it right, but it didn’t work as advertised. But a human being is a little different. The human being is both the object designed, and the one ‘using’ the object. So the ‘design’ issue suddenly has two facets where we only had one before.

If we were robots then these would both need to function ‘according to design’. The woman designed for being a wife-mother-keeper at home would have to marry, bear children, and keep at home in order to live up to her design. A failure in any of these would, indeed, be a ‘design flaw’.


But theology in general has separated these two. The woman, in body and nature, may have been designed to be a marvelous wife-mother-keeper at home… yet can still choose not to do any of those things. Regardless of which theory on the human will you accept, theologically, (Calvinism or Arminianism or some theory in between) they all include the idea that there is such a thing as ‘disobedience’ or ‘rebellion’ which is not a design flaw, but a ‘feature’ ( to use computer language). God did not design us as robots, so we cannot hold our design to that.

Indeed the doctrine of sin teaches us that our perfect design has become corrupted by our rebellion so that even if we should wish, in our human nature, to be the perfect wife-mother-keeper at home (or husband-father-sitter in the gates) we will be unable to. As Paul puts it:

Rom 7:14-25 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


So even the most willing of human beings will find themselves incapable of fulfilling God’s perfect plan for their lives: not because of some flaw in the design of women, but because of sin.

The amazing thing is that, despite of sin, the overwhelming majority of women over time have tended towards Gods design for their lives. Even women who work often complain about how difficult it is to go home and keep up their house. They still recognize this responsibility. Even the career woman often speaks, out loud or in the depths of her own soul, about how her biological clock is ticking.

Truth be told this is in some senses self-fulfilling. The society where the woman does not fulfill her design is a society that dies… literally. In order to survive the average woman, with today’s health care, must have at least 2.2 children. For every woman that fails to reproduce, for whatever reason, that number goes up for the remainder.

If we use a shovel to hit someone over the head and they die, this is not a design flaw of the shovel. Indeed, if they don’t die, that is still not a design flaw of the shovel. The Nun, the working woman, the soldier woman, the Sodomite woman… none of these are design flaws. They are perversions based upon choice. A choice rooted in sin, in rebellion against God.

And yet despite that sin, despite that rebellion, most shovels still get used to dig, and most women have chosen to be wives and mothers. Woe betide us if they hadn’t.

--

[1] In response on NLQ she states:
I meant that some women are not wives or mothers or in the home, some are wives but neither mothers nor in the home, that some are wives and mothers but STILL not In the home, that some are in the home but not mothers. I meant that human history would not be what it is without women inventing and without women working the farms and fields and support jobs. That not even the Bible shows women 100% as wives and mothers and in the home and does not condemn the judges and the warrior queens and the woman at the feet of Christ."

She states that I knew that, which I not only deny but I defy anyone to get all of that out of her simple statement. I would also ask who the 'warrior queen' was in Scripture. I must have missed that story.

Keeping the Law



I had commented on No Longer Qivering the other day and, among a blizzard of other replies, many of which I had a hard time responding to because of some technical problems, I received this question:

"Do you also follow Saturday Sabbath, Passover and kosher laws as well? If not, why not?"

Now this is a rather common question for me to receive, in various forms. It is asked almost exclusively (to me) as a form of protest or denial when I apply one of God’s laws to a modern situation. They tend not to particularly care whether I follow this law or that law, but they are eager to deny the use of God’s law in judging modern society. They desire to do, or support others in doing, something which is clearly against God’s law, and they wish for the Scriptures to be in favor or at least neutral toward their activity.

Ironically many of the people that argue in this way claim to be non-Christians. It is funny how so many people really want Scripture to be on their side in spite of the fact that they are against the God of Scipture. None of them seem to care what Buddah or Allah think about their actions: it is always the God of Scripture.

Oh, well, leaving that aside, let us turn to the question at hand. Arguing that God’s law (indeed God’s word) applies to actions such as women in the military, what of the laws she mentions? Saturday Sabbath? Passover? Kosher? If and how I practice those. Or, more generally, should modern Christians practice those?

Let us turn our attention, in answering that question, to I Corinthians chapter 11

1Co 11:1-7 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.



Here we see a NT ordinance: the headcovering. And one thing we notice fairly quickly about this ordinance is that it has two parts, two forms of fulfilment. The women ARE to wear headcoverings, and the men AREN’T to wear headcoverings. It is a law that makes a difference between two groups of people. A man following this ordinance in the same way that a woman follows it would be in disobedience to it, not obedience.

This kind of ordinance is not at all unusual to the issue of headcoverings. In the OT we find that the sons of the priests were given one law, which was distinct from the law that the non-sons-of-priests were given. So it is not unusual to have a law which binds one group to one thing, and doesn’t bind another, or binds them to something different.

On the other hand this is not the general case for most laws, as pretty much everyone agrees. Few people indeed are running around saying that the commandment ‘thou shalt not murder’ has been abolished. Even the most antinomian (anti-God’s-Law) of Christians rarely question the applicability of ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’.

So there are two classes of laws and ordinances. Those that have been given to one group of people, at one time, for on reason… and that are either different or don’t apply at all for another group of people at another time. And those that have been given to all mankind and reflect the very nature of God and creation.

Now let us turn to Acts chapter 15 and 21:

Act 15:5-6 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:22-29 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


Act 21:20-25 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.


The early church was faced with a quandry, a conflict. Certain people were saying that the new Gentile believers had to keep some specifically Jewish laws in order to be saved. In effect these people (judaizers) were saying that only Jews could be saved, thus if a Gentile wished to be saved, he had to become a Jew. In particular they had to follow the very specifically Jewish rite of circumcision; the rite that was mandatory on anyone wishing to become a Jew, and which would allow them to keep passover.


The apostles held a big meeting on this conflict, and came to a decision: Gentiles were not required to become Jews in order to be saved. The apostles did not ask that the Jews stop circumcising their young, or call them to disobey God’s law. And, indeed, they pointed out that the Gentiles were able to hear Moses (ie the Law) preached every Sabbath in Synagogue. But they were clear that the Gentiles were not required to become Jews (ie get circumcised) in order to be saved. Those laws did not apply to them.

As, indeed, why should they? Circumcision was given as a commanded rite to Abraham, his sons after him, and all the males born or bought in his house, forever. That’s it. It was never given as a rite to Gentiles, to Christians, or to all believers in Yaweh.

Passover was given as a rite to all of the Jews as a remembarance of what they had gone through in Egypt. It was specifically forbidden to the Gentiles (ie those who weren’t circumcised).

Kosher was given to the Jews as a rite intended to separate them from the surrounding people, to make them look different, to stand out, from the culture around them.There is no indication, in Scripture, that the Jews were ever asked to stop their specifically Jewish rituals. However neither is there any indication that God desired to require them of the Gentiles.

Now the Sabbath is a different issue. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance, and required of all men, everywhere. However the church has instituted a change in the Sabbath ordinance. Not an annulling, but a change. The Sabbath ordinance was changed from Saturday (actually Friday at sunset to Saturday at sunset) to Sunday; in honor of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We call it ‘the Lord’s day’.




9/09/2013

On Aspects of the Leveriate Law

Deu 25:5  If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
Deu 25:6  And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.
Deu 25:7  And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.
Deu 25:8  Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;
Deu 25:9  Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
Deu 25:10  And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. 


I got into a discussion the other day regarding the levirate law. I was told that this was a ceremonial law that had passed away with the end of the nation of Israel. I challenged this view with the idea that the levirate law was, in fact, a creation ordinance.

Now the conversation got rather confusing because I was using 'creation ordinance' rather differently than my interlocutor. I was using the term to mean a legal idea that was present before the writing of the Mosiac code. Potentially even before the time of Noah (as technically if they were codified at that time they would be 'Noahide' laws). The levirate law is clearly in that class.

I'm not sure what my opponent means by it, except as a synonym for 'moral'. He seems to ignore the actual etymology of the term.

But, anyway, what I mean by it is that it begins before the time of the starting of Israel. and we see this both because of an example (Onan and Tamar) but also because, in the beginning of the text, the idea is referred to as a 'duty' in a fashion that makes it clear, to me at least, that this was a 'known' concept.

The second issue we discussed was the reason for the law. He and others see this as a ceremonial law having to do with the lineage of Christ. The really odd thing about that is that is one thing it doesn't do.  At least twice in the line of Christ the levirate law was applied, and in neither case do the gospels later record its result.

You see in the case of the levirate law the new husband is supposed to raise up seed unto his brother. Thus the brother is the legal father. But the gospel of Christ, twice, records the actual father (Boaz or Judah) instead of the levirate father (Phineas or Er/Onan).

So it is hard to understand why they want to say this. I would propose that this law actually falls into another category; that it is a way of honoring your father.

The law specifically references the brother: raising up seed unto our brother, and 'build up his brother's house'. But who is your brother? It is another son of your father. If your brother's name dies, not only does his name die, but part of your own father's name dies.  If your father had two sons, now there is only one son left to carry on the name, only one sonly line.

Well, these are just a couple of thots, and my brain is operating in slow gear today, so maybe I missed something but there it is.






Luk 3:32  Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
Luk 3:33  Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
Luk 3:34  Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
Mat 1:3  And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Mat 1:4  And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
Mat 1:5  And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 


Share It

Blog Archive