Archive for the ‘Men's Rights’ Category
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
Genesis 29:23 …he took Leah his daughter…
It appears that this maneuver was Laban’s idea, but Jewish tradition says that Rachel and Leah willingly cooperated. Jacob and Rachel had devised a secret sign for just this situation, so that Jacob would not be fooled. Rachel, knowing that Leah might never be able to marry and have a family, had compassion on her and revealed the secret sign to her. Even so, it seems difficult to believe that Jacob could make such a mistake, especially after having lived with both of these women for seven years. But there are several other factors to consider:
- There was almost certainly a substantial amount of alcohol consumed during the celebrations.
- Rachel and Leah probably both wore veils, even in public, and which they might not have removed even on their wedding night until after the last lamp had been put out.
- The interior of an animal skin tent at night can be exceptionally dark.
- Jewish tradition says that Rachel and Leah were twins and so could have been very similar in height, weight, and build.
- God had promised to look after Jacob until he returned to Canaan, and Jacob’s blindness could have been induced by God to ensure the execution of a divine plan.
In support of the fourth and fifth items above, there is another tradition that says Esau should have married Leah while Jacob should have married Rachel. Since Jacob received Esau’s blessing from Isaac, he also had to be the father of all twelve of the tribes of Israel. Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah had been marked as the mothers of the nation of Israel, and no other woman would do. Therefore Jacob had to marry all four of them, and God made sure that it happened. But why did Rachel and Leah go along with this idea? I have heard some women say that they would rather be the third or fourth wife of King David than the first wife of Nabal. The rabbis say that Jacob married so late in life because he had been studying under Shem, the son of Noah. I do not know if that is true, but it would certainly make Jacob a more attractive prospect than most other men. Having spent the last seven years in such close proximity to Jacob, Leah might have already harbored a strong attraction to him. She was also a godly woman and probably very respectful of her father’s wishes, however conniving he might be.
Rachel was more likely than Leah to find another husband if Jacob rejected her and could have felt some compassion toward her sister in her unfortunate situation. She was also a godly woman and probably experienced a great deal of conflict in her loyalties, as she was not yet fully married to Jacob.
Posted in History, Marriage, Men's Rights, Parsha 07 - Vayetzei, Theology, Torah | No Comments »
Thursday, November 12th, 2009
- What if your free email provider indexed every email you sent or received for keywords?
- What if they provided a free search engine that remembered every search?
- What if they also owned a great video sharing site and remembered every video you watched?
- What if they offered free blogging sites, remembered every visit, and indexed every post and comment?
- What if the same company offered free maps and directions with satellite or even street-level views and remembered every location you viewed?
- What if they made the maps really easy by linking them to the GPS device in your phone?
- What if you could use their on-line productivity software to create all your documents and financial records.
- What if they let you store backup copies of all your computer files on their servers for safe keeping and kept a copy of your encryption key?
- What if they cross-referenced all these different data points and shared them with others?
George Orwell? 1984? The real thing could be so much worse.
Posted in Computers, History, Men's Rights, Politics, Science | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009
I’ll be on the Biblical Families Internet radio show this Sunday at 8 pm Central to discuss my book, A Commentary on Marriage in the Bible, vol 1: the Torah. The first half will be discussion between me and the host. The second half will be call in. (347) 857-1739.
Update December 21, 2009: The radio show went well for the most part. You can tell I don’t have a lot of radio experience! I need to correct one thing. At one point I said I didn’t see real life examples of patriarchy in action. I had to back-track a little bit beca…use my parents were actually excellent examples. The problem was that they were an anomaly. Few other “Christian” families lived by the same rules. You can download the show at Biblical Families Radio.
Posted in Books, Men's Rights, Personal, Theology, Torah | 4 Comments »
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009
Late again. Sorry.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. (14) And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
The practice of taking captive women as concubines has long been frowned upon in western cultures, and for good reason. As with marrying more than one woman, marrying a prisoner of war is a complicated and difficult proposition. A man of weak character can’t pull it off, and a man of poor character can’t do it well. On the other hand, difficult doesn’t mean sinful or impossible. In fact, in the context of the ancient near east–probably in other contexts as well–marriage was one of the best options available. It is better than killing her with the rest of her people or leaving her to be abused or enslaved by some other nation. At least as a concubine to an Israelite, she would be brought into the religion of Yahweh and enjoy the rights accorded to all wives by Torah.
Allowing a man to take such a woman back to his home also recognizes and helps to stem the harsh reality of rape in war. This law says that a man is not allowed to simply take whatever woman he wants, but knowing that he can still have her after following the proper procedure (and being reminded of that fact every year when reading Ki Tetzei in the synagogue) can serve to temper his immediate lusts. Chances are very good that after the thirty days of mourning have passed, he will have realized what a crazy idea it is to bring a pagan woman into his house, and he will allow her to leave. If not, then he would be required to begin her education in Torah and her conversion to belief in the True God before he could consummate the marriage. (See Leviticus 19:19, Deuteronomy 7:3, and Deuteronomy 22:9-11.)
If he changes his mind and allows her to leave, she will no longer be a prisoner of war but a free woman with all the rights of a stranger in Israel. Those rights were considerable indeed, especially in light of what she might face in some other land.
Tags: bible study, Ki Seitzei, ki tetse, ki tetzei, slavery, torah portion, torah study
Posted in History, Love, Marriage, Men's Rights, Parsha 49 - Ki Tetzei, Theology, Torah | No Comments »
Saturday, August 22nd, 2009
Deuteronomy 16:18-20 Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. (19) Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. (20) That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
God commanded his people to institute a civil government of men. Its activities must be carried out in the open (in the city gates). It may never favor a poor man over a rich man, a white man over a black man, a Jew over a gentile, a man over a woman, or vice versa. It may never accept payment from any party to a lawsuit or a criminal trial. It must always do what is righteous. “Just” in verse 20 was translated from the Hebrew tzedek, which means “righteousness”. It’s the same word David used in Psalms 119:144 referring back to this passage:
The righteousness of thy testimonies is everlasting: give me understanding, and I shall live.
The same Psalm further defines tzedek in verse 172:
My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.
That government is best which governs according to all God’s commandments, neither adding to them nor taking away from them.
Posted in Leadership, Men's Rights, Parsha 48 - Shoftim, Politics, Theology, Torah | No Comments »
Friday, August 21st, 2009
The Star of David is called the Magen David in Hebrew, which means “Shield of David.” Archaeologists have found examples of it dating back to within a few decades of David’s reign in Jerusalem, although it has changed somewhat over the centuries. Originally, it might not have had six points, but the modern incarnation seems appropriate to me. The double triangles can be used to illustrate some important concepts about God and his Messiah. That might or might not be why it came to be as it is. There is some evidence that it could have pagan origins, but the evidence is tenuous. If something more solid comes to light, I might decide to stop using it or anything like it.
The Magen Korper is the symbol I have chosen to represent my house. I began using the Magen David with alternate points connected by arcs as a personal device more than twenty-five years ago, long before I had any conscious interest in the Hebraic roots of the Christian faith. Originally I used it in a series of stories I began writing in elementary school. In the course of my studies of marriage in the Torah, I became convinced that the Jewish tallit, the mantle of Elijah, and the household banners of the wilderness camps are all of the same type. They are emblems of a patriarch’s house and symbols of the authority which God has delegated to them. Deciding that my house should also have a symbol, I took this sign and added a Hebrew kof in the center to represent my family name of Carper. I call it Magen Korper instead of Magen Carper in honor of my family’s immigrant ancestor who spelled it so.
When my son turned thirteen, I had the shield embroidered on the corners of a tallit in a different set of colors to commemorate his adoption of authority in my house as a young man and my firstborn son. I hope that his sons continue to use it or a close variant of it as a sign of familial identity and unity.
Since this symbol represents my house and no other, no one who is not a member of my house or one of my descendants is authorized to use it in any manner. It is my trade mark over which I have exclusive legal ownership.
Posted in History, Leadership, Men's Rights, Personal, Politics, Theology | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, May 13th, 2009
According to a report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (That mouthful sounds like a bureaucratic dream!), the leading cause of physical injury to women 18 and over is accidentally falling, not domestic violence or any other kind of violence against women. Not only is domestic violence not a leading cause of injury to women, all deliberate acts of violence account for only 1.4% of injuries suffered and reported by women.
Potential problems with the report:
- It was made by government.
- It was made by people.
- It depends on accurate reporting in emergency rooms.
- It depends on emergency room visits.
- It depends on accurate compilation, analysis, etc. I.e. it was made by people.
I’m not saying domestic violence doesn’t exist or isn’t a problem. It’s just not the rampant problem feminists and their allies would have you believe. They are either delusional or they are liars. Take your pick.
Posted in History, Marriage, Men's Rights, Politics | 3 Comments »
Tuesday, May 5th, 2009
Leviticus 21:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them…
On some sense, I am sure that everyone is created equal, but I have yet to define what that sense might be. From birth we are all different. Some are stronger, some are hairier, some have different parts, and those differences confer varying responsibilities and powers.
God holds the physical descendants of Aaron to a higher standard than he holds the rest of us. For example, he deals with their sexual immorality much more harshly. The daughters of Aaron must remain virgins until married. If they don’t, the penalty isn’t just stoning. It’s burning.
Aaron’s sons are held to a higher standard than his daughters. Emor gives a short list of things that a priest may not do that other of God’s people may:
- Touch the corpse of anyone who is not an immediate relative.
- Shave his head or disfigure his beard.
- Marry a woman who has sex outside of marriage or who has been divorced.
The High Priest has an even higher standard than that. He may not
- Touch the corpse of even immediate relatives.
- Marry a widow or any non-virgin.
- Leave the sanctuary while performing the duties of his office.
- Bring anything unclean into the sanctuary.
Paul alluded to this same concept when he told Timothy and Titus his standards for Church leaders. He never intended those lists to be taken as absolute laws for all believers. (Or even for all church leaders, for that matter!) He was illustrating how good leaders must have a different code of behavior. There is no sin in preparing and burying a corpse nor in having a rebellious child, but God said that his priests shouldn’t do those things.
That God’s standards for some people might be different than his standards for others only surprises the inheritors of the so-called Enlightenment. Many good things have come from the philosophical and theological revolutions of the past, but some things have also been lost and corrupted.
Posted in History, Keeping Torah, Leadership, Marriage, Men's Rights, Parsha 31 - Emor, Politics, Theology, Torah | 1 Comment »
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009
My first book is now available for purchase! You can get it in trade paperback, PDF, PalmPilot, Microsoft Reader, or Kindle formats. Go here and order ten. Right now.
I mean it.
Now.
Posted in Books, Keeping Torah, Marriage, Men's Rights, Messianica, Personal, Theology, Torah | Comments Off
Monday, March 16th, 2009
Exodus 35:5
…whosoever is of a willing heart… God invited every individual man, woman, and child to donate the materials of the Tabernacle: the metals, fabrics, oil, spices, and gems, all of the things that, together, symbolize a complete and balanced child of God. They also symbolize the roles of husband, wife, and children in a family. God wanted free-will offerings, because he does not force us to become the people he wants us to be.
A man cannot be forced to love his wife; he must choose to love her. She can manipulate him and cajole him, but the result is not real love. It is form without substance. Likewise, a woman cannot be forced to submit to her husband’s rule. A man can certainly try to force his wife to submit, but he will fail. He can beat her, threaten her, or manipulate her, but he will never have true submission from the heart. Either she will resist to the point at which he is no longer willing to keep her as his wife or else she will become someone else, someone much less than the woman he married.
Posted in Leadership, Marriage, Men's Rights, Parsha 22 - Vayakhel, Theology, Torah | Comments Off