“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” -Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. (The Register, Dec 7, 2009.)
In case you need a review of why Schmidt’s opinion matters, see my previous blog post about Google. Everybody thinks everybody else is doing something they shouldn’t. Privacy is essential to freedom.
My current reading queue after I finish a book on IT consulting:
Eliyahu ben DavidI’ll try to let you know what I think.
Mark Niwot posted a great article showing a biblical understanding of marriage and polygyny at Helium.
Scripture repeatedly commands (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32, Rev. 22:18-19, etc) that man is not to “add to” nor “subtract from” the Written Word of God. Our Savior was likewise critical (Matthew 23 is just one obvious example) of those “Hypocrites!” who took it upon themselves to insert their own “traditions” into “law” and thus make His commandments “of no effect”. (Matt. 15:6, Mark 7:13, etc.) But there is perhaps no better example of a false doctrine elevated by tradition alone to the status of unquestioned “Law” than the false idol of Monogamy….
I frequently hear people say that God allowed this or that sinful behavior because people are weak.
Buzzzz. Try again.
God does not allow sin. He never says, “Don’t ever do this, but if you do, here’s how I want you to go about it…” He just says, “Don’t do that.”
So, if, in the course of your Bible reading, you see that God said, “If you are going to [insert activity here], then do it like this,” you can safely conclude that the given activity is not sinful. It might not be the best thing for you, but it’s not a sin to make choices where God has given you liberty.
Pastor Mark has another great podcast, this one on the respective roles and responsibilities of men and women in marriage. Listen to his last sermon at http://graftedin.com. Seriously. Listen.
Genesis 29:23 …he took Leah his daughter…
It appears that this maneuver was Laban’s idea, but Jewish tradition says that Rachel and Leah willingly cooperated. Jacob and Rachel had devised a secret sign for just this situation, so that Jacob would not be fooled. Rachel, knowing that Leah might never be able to marry and have a family, had compassion on her and revealed the secret sign to her. Even so, it seems difficult to believe that Jacob could make such a mistake, especially after having lived with both of these women for seven years. But there are several other factors to consider:
In support of the fourth and fifth items above, there is another tradition that says Esau should have married Leah while Jacob should have married Rachel. Since Jacob received Esau’s blessing from Isaac, he also had to be the father of all twelve of the tribes of Israel. Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah had been marked as the mothers of the nation of Israel, and no other woman would do. Therefore Jacob had to marry all four of them, and God made sure that it happened. But why did Rachel and Leah go along with this idea? I have heard some women say that they would rather be the third or fourth wife of King David than the first wife of Nabal. The rabbis say that Jacob married so late in life because he had been studying under Shem, the son of Noah. I do not know if that is true, but it would certainly make Jacob a more attractive prospect than most other men. Having spent the last seven years in such close proximity to Jacob, Leah might have already harbored a strong attraction to him. She was also a godly woman and probably very respectful of her father’s wishes, however conniving he might be.
Rachel was more likely than Leah to find another husband if Jacob rejected her and could have felt some compassion toward her sister in her unfortunate situation. She was also a godly woman and probably experienced a great deal of conflict in her loyalties, as she was not yet fully married to Jacob.
George Orwell? 1984? The real thing could be so much worse.
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.
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.
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.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Men’s Rights category.