EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME XVI

 

Culture

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume XVI--Culture

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.age-end.com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume XVI--Culture

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part WW--Christian Culture 

 

      235             Modern Sun Worship Culture I                                                                        6

 

      236             Modern Sun Worship Culture II                                                                     12

 

      237             Modern Sun Worship Culture III                                                                    19

 

      238             Modern Sun Worship Culture IV                                                                   33

 

      239             Modern Sun Worship Culture V                                                                    45

 

      240             Sun Worship Commercialism I                                                                      56

 

      241             Sun Worship Commercialism II                                                                     69

 

      242             Sun Worship Commercialism III                                                                    76

 

 

Part XX--Gender 

 

      243             Gender Separation                                                                                          89

 

      244             Men                                                                                                                     96

 

      245             Women                                                                                                             100

 

      246             More on Sun Worship Men and Women                                                   112

 

      247             Sun Worship and Marriage                                                                          126

 

      248             Divorce and Remarriage                                                                               142

 

      249             Sun Worship and Children                                                                          156

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume sixteen of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

 

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 235--Modern Sun Worship Culture I

 

 

The Christian Dilemma 

 

Many students of the Word begin to realize, over time, that Christianity has an awful lot of the relics of sun worship present, as amply presented in this study. 

 

Needless to say, Easter, Christmas, Christian holidays generally, pictures, images, symbols, words used in worship, ritual, theology, and on and on are all based on sun worship and not on the Scriptures.  And surprisingly, this fact does grossly impact upon the question of the New Testament and the Good News. 

 

 

Christianity and the Hebrew Civilization 

 

To begin to approach some understanding about and appreciation for the reported problems in Christianity, as outlined in the former chapters, it is imperative to take a look at what all can be involved in a conceptual approach to the overall definition of Christianity and compare that definition with a similar overview of the word and idea of the Hebrew definition. 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 5, p. 505) sets the stage for comprehending the next several chapters in this production by defining Christianity as “A general term denoting the historic community deriving from the original followers of Jesus of Nazareth; the institutions, social and cultural patterns, and the beliefs and doctrines evolved by this community; and--in the widest sense--the forms of civilization which it created or influenced.  (Thus many elements in modern secular, Western civilization are still, in one way or another called ‘Christian’ or attributed to ‘Christianity.’)...

 

“The vague character of the term provides this wide range of meaning.”  Judaica’s concluding remark is certainly true and would not be argued by any informed people in the world today.  Truly, Christianity is a very broad term. 

 

In “Who Wrote the New Testament?  The Making of the Christian Myth” (p. 310), Burton L. Mack correctly notes that there is no need to ponder about whether religions have cultural and social effect.  Categorically, they do as it’s possible to see in our time in home and around the world.  Of course, Mack is correct.  Religions do affect the culture and social habits of both religious and secular people. 

 

 

Earl Jones, Revisited 

 

In the Mar-Apr 2001 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 2), Earl Jones commented upon Matthew 11:1-20 where YESHUA pronounced a curse of sorts upon certain cities in Palestine (which were inhabited with very evil people). 

 

Jones wrote that The MESSIAH “was not chastising the morality of the believers in these cities for morality’s sake alone.  The morality of those in control of the civil government of those cities, also controlled the culture which includes morality.  Jesus was condemning them for not teaching and maintaining a righteous culture for the inhabitants of those cities.” 

 

Jones then went on to quote Proverbs 29:2 which says that “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people mourn.”  The point Jones was making was that the morality of the generic people is somewhat determined by the prevailing culture--which is subject to the existing human leaders.  Good leadership can improve morality and vice versa. 

 

 

The Essence Here 

 

Of course, the just quoted observations are essentially, or at least partially, correct.  Religion affects the prevailing culture; which, in turn, affects morality.  Manifestly, in a democratic society, the prevailing culture selects and elects the governmental leadership; which, in turn, also affects the prevailing culture and morality. 

 

Obviously, too, the prevailing religion and religious teachings by the religious authorities affect not only the culture and the general morality of the people; but importantly, the civil leadership (in a democracy).  In other words, declines in morality and the culture can ultimately be traced to the existing religious leadership and theology. 

 

The point is that a reference to Christianity or Christian is not necessarily just a matter of religion.  It is a broader term with far more considerations and implications in the whole spectrum of the morality, culture and civilization ensuing in so-called Christian nations (like the US and other nations in the Christian West).  

 

Actually, as will be developed hereafter throughout this publication, the same reasoning applies to the concept of the Hebrew religion (as communicated in the Scriptures).  The word Hebrew is more than just the OT religion.  It is a racial/ethnic people, and it includes not only their religion; but also, their whole culture and civilization, as ascertainable from the Scriptures. 

 

Consequently, both terms (Christianity and Hebrew) imply and communicate something far more larger and vast than just religion.  Throughout this production, this vastness is under discussion generally whenever either term is used.  The next several chapters will devolve to cultural and social questions. 

 

 

Sun Worship Customs 

 

Hence, beyond the obvious religious issues of sun worship, described heretofore, there are also gross facets of sun worship present in the entire Western culture and civilization, as will be shortly established and proven conclusively. 

 

While this reality is readily traceable to the Roman Empire culture of 2,000 years ago, it is also true that Rome got her culture and civilization from Greece, who got hers partially from the Medes/Persians, who got theirs from Babylon and who got hers from Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. 

 

All of these ancient peoples and nations were sun worshippers, not only in religion, but in their entire cultures, customs and civilizations as well.  In short, sun worship was their way of living; and it extended to their entire lives. 

 

To a great extent on this theme, the Book tells us about the various sun worship cultures in contact with YHWH’s peoples--such as those at Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome, etc. 

 

Repeatedly, the followers of YHWH have been told not to practice the customs and cultures of these sun worshipping, heathen nations.  In fact, the Torah has a mitzwah prohibiting the following of the customs of the Canaanites (Lev 20:23). 

 

The earlier mentioned Christmas is a classic case on this theme where Yirmeyahu (Jer, 10th chapter) goes to some length to describe in detail the popular Christmas tree.  Despite this clear and precise description and condemnation, Christians continue to delight in this idol and actually defend it and ridiculously try to argue against the text of Jeremiah 10. 

 

 

Secular People As Well 

 

Beyond the fact that religious Christians love, respect and adore the pagan Christmas and its manifestations, it must be observed that secular people generally in the entire Christian West exhibit the same love, respect and adoration for not only Christmas; but also, the other pagan, sun worship holidays (as pointed out in preceding comments). 

 

Thus, Christmas and the other sun worship holidays are a part and parcel of the culture of secular people, as well as religious persons in Christian civilizations.  So it isn’t only religious Christians who practice sun worship.  Instead, it is almost everybody generally in a Christian nation who practice sun worship.  Thus, sun worship is unconsciously practiced by secular people, as well as religious people. 

 

Admittedly, non-religious (secular) people may not go to Christian sun worship church services on Sunday mornings.  But otherwise, their secular lives are almost totally tied into sun worship for most of the rest of the week.  In effect, what one finds in the Christian West is a devotion by both secular and religious people to the customs and culture of the prevailing sun worship society. 

 

While some “few” religious Jews (perhaps Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox or true Messianic Jews) and a few other believers have tried to keep themselves separate and away from many of the evils and wretchedness of the contemporary, Western, Christian, sun worship society, most such persons have succumbed and joined into the depravity, along with the generic Christian sun worshippers.

 

 

Nissim Dahan 

 

Nissim Dahan was the Israeli Minister of Health under the Ariel Sharon government in 2002 and early 2003.  It just so happens that Dahan is a member of the Ultra Orthodox Shas sect in Israel (which will be described in some detail in later chapters).  This means that he is a deeply religious Jew; or in the Jewish mentality, he is “observant.” 

 

In Israel, the religious or observant Jews are in sharp contrast to the secular or non-observant Jews.  Actually, there is quite a struggle among these two sharply divided Jewish factions.  For years, the secular Jews have ruled supreme. 

 

But here, in the early 21st century, observant Jews (Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox) are increasingly becoming better known in pushing their positions (based upon religion) upon the generic Israeli state. 

 

Subsequent chapters herein will discuss the whole Israeli situation in some detail and particularly how the evil Amalekites have had political power over the nation.  But as just noted, there is a motion underway where many of the religious Jews are beginning to flex their muscles and come out of the cocoons that they have been wrapped in for centuries. 

 

Nissim Dahan and the Shas people are in this category (along with the highly respected and very religious Shas leader Ovadia Yosef, who will be more fully commented upon in the later chapters).  Anyway, Dahan was in the spotlight in early January 2003 with some of his wisdom which deserves some comment now. 

 

In a major political bombshell, in the modern Israeli state, Dahan was speaking to the international convention of Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem.  He said that non-observant (non-religious) Jews should not immigrate to Israel (Jan 3, 2003, “Forward,” p. 4). 

 

Prime Minister Sharon took the position that anyone wanting to be a Jew should be able to convert, suggesting that anyone converting to Judaism can come to Israel.  Other government leaders spoke out and sharply condemned Dahan. 

 

 

Eli Yishai 

 

But in a follow-up to Dahan’s comments, Shas chairman, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, also spoke out on the same theme as Dahan (ibid, p. 4). 

 

Yishai said that “If Israel is losing its Jewish character, and becoming a secular state (many Jews are pushing hard in this direction, as will be later addressed), should we bring here the Jews of the Diaspora, who keep the Torah in their communities in order for them to be assimilated in a place where churches are built?” 

 

The Shas chairman added that “It is better to stay Jewish anywhere else, and not to come to Israel to assimilate” (ibid, p. 4).  He went on to say that if religious Jews in the Diaspora had known that secular Jews (like Shinui head Yosef Lapid) would work with the Labor party (and its head Amram Mitzra) to form a secular state, they would have stayed in Morocco, Tunis and Iran in order to remain Jews. 

 

However, the wisdom of Yishai and the Shas party really came out when Yishai again warned of a secular government by saying:  “A secular government will bring, according to Sallai Meridor, hundreds or thousands of churches, will open more stores that sell pork, and in every city we will see Christmas trees.  This is what Yosef Lapid and Amram Mitzra want” (ibid, p. 4). 

 

Well, how can anyone improve upon the words of Yishai?  The Shas leader has perceptively spoken words which generally are impossible to hear at the top levels of the Israeli government and certainly not among government leaders in the Christian West. 

 

Yes, if a truly secular government takes over in Israel (as various people like Lapid and Mitzra are promoting), it will spell out pork, Christmas trees and Christian Churches. 

 

There is no question about it.  The sincerely religious people of the Israeli Shas party have a duty to speak out and warn the nation of what can happen with a secular government.  But will the people listen to Shas? 

 

 

The Point Is 

 

Of course, the whole point of presenting these comments is to show that the relics of Christian sun worship (eating pork, observing Christmas and having Christmas trees, and building Christian Churches with their bell towers and phallic symbols) are synonymous with the world’s secular governments. 

 

In other words, there is no semblance of the true Hebrew religion in the depraved secular governments found in the Western Christian culture and civilization. 

 

 

The Culture of Evil Affects Everybody 

 

In short, virtually everybody (both religious Christians and secular non-Christians) are culturally sun worshippers in the Christian West, with few, if any, exceptions (in Christian lands, nations and civilizations).  Yes, almost everybody eats pork, observes Christmas and appreciates Christian Churches. 

 

The Shas people in Israel clearly understand how far this evil can go. 

 

To demonstrate how pervasive and far reaching sun worship is, in terms of the lives and beings of modern Christians in the present Western civilization and culture, this study will outline (in the following chapters) several illustrations of American culture that have their origins entirely in ancient sun worship societies. 

 

Yet, Americans generally are totally ignorant of this linkage and most could care less one way or the other. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 236--Modern Sun Worship Culture II

 

 

Pets 

 

Numerous American people have dogs and cats for pets.  Many go to the extreme of not only letting these pets live in their homes, but frequently handle them and eat and sleep with them.  Several (perhaps just a few) even copulate with their animals. 

 

Some people go to the extreme of treating their pets as members of the family.  A classic example of this was shown on July 28, 1998, during live television presentations at the US capitol memorial for slain capitol policemen John Gibson and Jacob J. (J. J.) Chestnut, who were killed in the line of duty on July 24th. 

 

The memorial services included comments by President Slick Clinton, the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate and other important officials.  It was held in the rotunda of the capitol which is normally reserved for presidents and other extremely important people.  During the services, the ABC News camera panned to the Black family of officer Chestnut. 

 

His grieving widow and children were present with a dog which must have been the family dog.  The woman was hugging the dog (instead of her nearby small children), as an expression of her grief and sorrow over the loss of J. J.  Apparently, she chose to bring the dog to the services on the pretext that the dog was part of the family. 

 

While it might be routine and normal that an American (Black or White) family would own a family dog, it does remain curious that the woman would bring the dog to a memorial service for her dead husband in the rotunda of the US Capitol.  In any case, it demonstrates the honor and esteem that a typical Western family places on dogs.  

 

 

The Problem 

 

So, what’s the problem with dogs and cats?  Well, all of this is unscriptural (certainly, in the Word, dogs are pretty low life animals and the lowest of mongrel peoples are referred to as dogs, as noted elsewhere in this study).  Too, the practice comes from the culture of ancient sun worshippers.  Ancient Egyptian sun worshippers frequently had pet dogs and occasionally pet cats in their homes and families. 

 

Of course, from the Book, these animals are unclean (Lev 11:1-47; Deut 14:3-20).  Among other things, they can pass sickness and disease (especially worms) to their handlers.  No believer would even touch them without washing or bathing afterwards.  It would be unthinkable about having them in your home in close personal contact. 

 

Tragically, Christian sun worshippers ignore the Word and often allow cats and dogs into their homes and even into their cars on automobile trips.  Sometimes, these cats and dogs actually lick their masters and their masters’ children. 

 

A news report in the March 1998 “Search the Scriptures” newsletter (p. 9) said that a nurse at an intensive care nursery in a NH hospital was responsible for causing an outbreak of a yeast infection that infected some 24 babies over a 15-month period in the unit.  The nurse had failed to wash her hands after handling her infected dog.  

 

 

Syro-Phoenician Woman, Revisited

 

Having condemned the Christian sun worship practice of allowing unclean dogs in Christian homes, mention must be made to an argument on this issue from a person wanting to justify the practice.  The issue concerns YESHUA’s statement to the Syro-Phoenician woman and her reply--discussed earlier (Matt 15:26-27; Mk 7:27-28). 

 

He called her a dog and said it was not right to throw the bread of the children (of the House of Yisrael) to the dogs.  She replied yes, but even the dogs (under the table as Mark gives it) could eat of the crumbs which fall from the master’s table.  In this context, the word “dogs” comes from the Greek “kunarion,” mentioned earlier, which refers to small, pet, house dogs (“Jewish New Testament Commentary,” p. 53). 

 

This remark suggests that the Edomite woman and her Greek religion (indicated in Mk 7:26) allowed the owning of unclean house dogs as being culturally and religiously acceptable.  The question surfacing then is it right to have pet dogs in one’s house in view of YESHUA’s supposed acceptance of her words when He granted her request. 

 

Well, one might try to read that into the context, but such a conclusion does not have to be accepted or even allowed.  True, the Greek, sun worshipping culture and religion of the Syro-Phoenician woman and multitudes of other peoples have had dogs in their houses (and under their tables)--just as is true today in sun worshipping Christendom.  Nothing has changed in the last 2,000 years on this issue among sun worshippers. 

 

But does that fact make it right for true Israelite believers?  Of course not!  YESHUA was not teaching, suggesting or implying that true believers should go against YHWH’s laws on clean and unclean animals simply because of a persistent woman bringing up the reality of “her” raising, culture and society. 

 

No, the truth is quite clear.  He chose to show her mercy and compassion--despite her evil, sun worship culture, life style and Greek religion which were probably attributable to her racial genes.  He evidently showed her mercy because she was ignorant and persistent with apparently some humility and a good attitude (as suggested when she willingly acknowledged that she was a dog). 

 

 

Possible Exceptions Justifying Pets 

 

While the possession of pets offer questionable benefits, one exception may be with owning a cat.  It “might” be proper to own a cat if a home has a mouse problem.  Cats can be very useful in getting rid of rodents.  But even here, there must be some care and discretion in allowing them indoors. 

 

Seeing eye dogs for the blind could also be in a slightly different situation. This writer would not dare attempt to go on record in this instant.  But even a blind person needs to be aware of the problem and take at least some measures to clean himself up periodically and limit contacts, particularly in doors and in non-essential usage. 

 

How about horses and donkeys used for transportation?  Yes, they are unclean as well.  But modern sun worshippers do not typically try to house and feed them inside their homes, as they do with cats and dogs.  Of course, the use of unclean horses and donkeys for “necessary” transportation outside the home is far different than having unclean cats and dogs “unnecessarily” in a home. 

 

In any case, the persons in contact with unclean animals need to realize that they should wash their hands and/or bathe appropriately after contact with an unclean animal.  One can be sure that YESHUA took a bath by evening after riding the donkey, as mentioned in the NT. 

 

 

One Key Issue 

 

One of the issues not addressed so far in this presentation is whether the usual or common Israelite believers can even own dogs, cats or other unclean animals (beyond the special cases where they serve a particular purpose, as pointed out above). 

 

Evidently, the answer is yes--since YHWH has made them for a purpose.  Dogs are good friends.  And as noted in the above comments, cats are one of the best mouse catchers there is--providing they are not over fed. 

 

A wise, old, Black man in the Southern mountains of Wilkes County, North Carolina once had a hunting dog named Queen.  He never allowed her to get fat and sassy.  He always maintained that “fat dogs ain’t no good fer huntin.”  That’s also a good piece of advice for anyone wanting to own cats to catch mice. 

 

 

The Right Approach 

 

Now, back to the question of cats and dogs as pets.  On this, things have to be put in the right perspective.  Cats and dogs belong out of doors (in dog houses or out buildings or shelters during cold weather) and not inside living with Adamites.  Thus, crumbs from their master’s table can be fed them--naturally, but out of doors! 

 

By the way, this was the historic situation in early America.  Dogs were kept out of doors and especially in rural areas and on farms.  Many people were acutely aware of the fact that dogs were dirty and would have never allowed them inside their homes.  In fact, most such dogs were so trained that they would never attempt to come inside a house, even when the door was left open for them to enter. 

 

In many instances, dog owners did build or buy dog houses for their pet dogs to use in inclement weather.  But times have changed.  Modern sun worshipping Americans now typically have their pet dogs and cats living with them in their homes just like the ancient sun worshipping Egyptians and Syro-Phoenicians. 

 

Incidentally, the Scriptures never seem to record an instance of unclean animals being in a house with religious Israelites (although YESHUA, because of necessity, was born in a stable).  Again, it is well to note that dogs are referred to as one of the lowest forms of animals. 

 

Moreover, the “Acts of the Torah,” found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifies an item number (9) which says that “Dogs are not to be brought into Jerusalem” (“Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls,” p. 194).  It seems abundantly clear that no believing Israelite family would have ever allowed unclean animals into their house for close association. 

 

Finally, the student of truth might be interested in learning of an AP news item of December 13, 1998, which noted that in Communist Romania, and presumably in other Communist states, it was considered to be a “bourgeois habit” for city people to own or have a dog in town. 

 

Whatever else can be said about the Communists, they were miles ahead of the Western, Christian, sun worship culture--at least, on the question of dogs.  Tragically, Western, Christian, sun worship people love unclean animals and love to have them in their homes. 

 

 

The Responsible Angle 

 

In the owning of pets, the one thing that most people seem to overlook is the aspect of personal responsibility for their pets and what the pets do in terms of society.  The situation with the NH nurse, cited above, is a classic illustration where this woman became guilty of bringing hurt upon a number of innocent people. 

 

Clearly, she was responsible.  But we can be sure that most of society will not look upon this question that way.  Most people will conclude that it was just tough that she brought a yeast infection into the hospital.  If she was prosecuted and sent to jail or made to pay restitution for the hurt she caused, the word would get out and more pet owners would get the message that they are responsible! 

 

 

Bad Dogs in Idaho 

 

In terms of responsibility, as just cited, one of the things that frequently happens with dogs is that they bite or attack some innocent person.  And here, the issue is not over a dog attacking a burglar or trespasser in areas where they should not be present. 

 

Uncontrolled or unrestrained dogs have attacked and even killed people.  Several dogs in a pack have been known to attack small children.  Pit bulldogs can be very dangerous. 

 

The Dec 31, 2002, Idaho “Spokesman-Review” (p. A1) had a story by Susan Drumheller on “Pit bulls back home after attack.”  The essence of this report concerned a couple named James and Cheryl Dunnington, near Bonners Ferry, Idaho, who just happen to have owned nine pit bulls. 

 

In December 2002, a 50-year old jogger named Denise Dickison was running on the county road near the Drumheller’s place.  Three of the pit bulls got out of the yard and attacked poor Denise and mauled her pretty badly before she was rescued by a neighbor woman named Ginny Napier and a neighbor man (named Rudy Byler) in a pick-up truck. 

 

Byler and Napier were able to drag the injured woman into Byler’s pick-up before the dogs had killed her.  Napier said that within another minute, the dogs would have killed Dickison. 

 

Poor Denise was taken to the hospital with multiple bites and bruises.  One dog was killed from a passing car and the other two dogs were quarantined for ten days to check for rabies. 

 

The purpose of Drumheller’s story was to say that the dogs in quarantine had been released and sent back to the Dunnington home.  Apparently, nothing from a criminal point will happen though the owners were charged with two counts of vicious dogs at large--a misdemeanor.  Since this was a first offense by the dogs involved, Idaho law required that they be returned to their owner. 

 

Local prosecutor Todd Reed says that that’s all the state can do based upon current state laws.  Otherwise, poor Denise will be able to file a civil lawsuit against the Dunningtons which can drag on and on; and of course, make a lot of money for some local lawyers. 

 

The bottom line on this story is that pet dogs are not something good--for many reasons.  And in the case of pit bulls, one should be prepared to go to jail or suffer greatly otherwise from owning them. 

 

 

A More Tragic Case 

 

In early 2002, another woman named Marjorie Knoller was irresponsible with a dangerous dog which attacked an innocent woman named Diane Whipple in the hall of Diane’s apartment in San Francisco.  Diane was killed.  Of course, Marjorie said it wasn’t her fault.  But she and her husband Robert Noel were tried (Apr 1, 2002, “US News & World Report,” p. 8). 

 

Marjorie was found guilty of second degree murder and Robert was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.  This is the way it should be.  People are responsible and should be punished for not restraining their possibly dangerous animals.  Per the Word, these people would have to flee to a city of refuge to avoid being killed by Diane’s next of kin.  This is the way it should be. 

 

In the Western mountains, the snow gets heavy in the winter.  Deer find it hard to find food and even to walk or run in the deep snow (their feet sink in from the weight).  Dogs have a much easier time on snow and thoroughly enjoy chasing and sometimes killing deer which cannot get away. 

 

In early 2002, the state of Idaho announced that she would fine dog owners who let their dogs chase deer.  This is the way it should be.  The book should be thrown at these people.  If it is illegal to kill a deer out of season, it is illegal for a dog to kill a deer out of season. 

 

 

Other Pets As Well 

 

While the above focus has been on “unclean” dogs and cats, it goes without saying that modern, stupid, Christian Israelites have all kinds of other “unclean” animals and birds as pets as well, although not as commonly found as dogs and cats.  All of the above remarks on dogs and cats apply equally to all other unclean animals and birds. 

 

It has become extremely popular today among some people to own snakes--including such dangerous reptiles as rattle snakes and pythons.  While most snake owners are not apt to handle, play with and give the snakes the intimacy that dog and cat owners afford their pets, there still is a lot of contact with an unclean specie. 

 

This pet snake phenomenon has a bad feature which can cause real problems (just as some pet, pit bulldogs can cause problems).  For example, a stupid couple in rebellion against YHWH’s Torah owned a pet python in Centralia, Illinois.  The python was about seven and a half feet long and presumably could be dangerous if it ever got out of its cage. 

 

The rebellious and wicked couple had a two-year-old baby boy.  Sure enough, on August 30, 1999, the python got out of its cage, killed the child (bit the boy and smothered him to death) and was preparing to eat the baby.  Prosecutors in Centralia said that they would prosecute the parents for endangerment. 

 

A similar event happened when a Pennsylvania couple stupidly owned several snakes and exotic lizards which they kept in their home with their children.  Near August 25, 2001, per news reports, one of the pythons got out and proceeded to wrap itself around the throat of the couple’s eight-year old daughter, Amber. 

 

By the time that the mother reached the child and got the snake pried loose, it was too late.  The child died.  In this case, of being careless and irresponsible, are the parents of this child guilty of murder or manslaughter?  This possibility has been broached earlier and will receive some further attention in later comments on selfishness. 

 

This is one of the fall-outs of owning dangerous pets.  They are always susceptible of getting out of their cages and not only attacking and killing members of the owner’s family, but also neighbors, friends and others who may innocently come into contact with them (especially out of doors).  Most or all of these varmints are unclean and have no business being pets inside the homes of the followers of YHWH YESHUA. 

 

 

A Final Story 

 

There is a final story from Spokane, Washington which deserves mention.  This one concerns a man named Bob Hull and his, so-called, love of pets.  Per the May 29, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. B3), local county sheriff deputies visited his home in May 2003 for some unstated reason. 

 

The deputies discovered that Hull had at least 32 live cats and dozens of live dogs at his home while a local county ordnance only allowed a person to have four cats and four dogs at one time.  In looking around, officers made another amazing discovery.  Hull was so devoted to his pets that he refused to part with them, and even after they were dead. 

 

Hull had three large white freezers on the front porch of his house which contained the frozen carcasses of his dead pets since 1997.  The freezers contained the bodies of 20 kittens, 15 adult cats, 18 dogs, one bird, four mice and a rabbit.  Each animal was wrapped in an individual animal bag (that he had obtained from a veterinarian).  Some of the bags reflected the name of the enclosed dead pet. 

 

Question--is this absolute madness, stupidity or what? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 237--Modern Sun Worship Culture III

 

 

Sports and Athletic Events 

 

Josephus, in his works of 2,000 years ago, wrote an extensive condemnation about athletic and sporting events.  While he made it clear that such are against his religion, he did not quote precise Scriptures to condemn the practices. 

 

Josephus did bring the issue up in connection with what the Greeks had done in the days of Antiochus Epiphanies (c168 BCE) when they built a gymnasium and did everything that they thought possible to force the Judean inhabitants to adopt the Grecian sun worship culture and practices.  As pointed out earlier, I and II Maccabees describe this in detail. 

 

In the late first century BCE, the Amalekite Herod the Great followed suit and did the same thing. 

 

Herod introduced pagan games, promoted the Greek Olympic games and built a theater, a hippodrome and a large amphitheater in the area where chariot races and contests of various kinds took place, including men fighting animals (“Josephus, The Essential Writings,” p. 244, and “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. I, p. 439). 

 

Just as Second Temple Jews had little regard for sports, the same thing applies today among sincere religious Jews.  For example, Rav Gabriel Kosover, principal at the Ultra Orthodox Derekh Tvunah Talmud Torah school in Jerusalem, eschews physical and sports education as “a waste of Torah study time and emblematic of gentile pursuits” (Apr 7, 2003, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 14). 

 

 

The Main Problems 

 

So, what then is the problem with sports and athletic events?  After some thought, this writer offers these possibilities.  First, the historical basis is clearly sun worshipping Greece and their games and sporting events.  The original Greek Olympiad festival and games were in honor of the Greek gods (“What the Great Religions Teach,” p. 105).  As a minimum, the periodic Olympics are called into serious question. 

 

Another feature was brought out by Dr Emil Schurer in “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” (v. I, p. 23, division 2).  Schurer noted that the “games were often closely connected with the religious rites” --in the context of the various sun worship cults and particularly those in Greece which favored sports so much. 

 

In fact, writer Paula Fredriksen, in an article on “Paul at the Races,” appearing in the June 2002 “Bible Review” (p. 12), makes the case that athletics started as a religion.  Fredriksen says that in the ancient Mediterranean culture (of Greece and Rome), activities like going to the theater, watching races (and other sporting events), convening a city council, etc were all part of the worship of the traditional gods. 

 

Modern Christians have picked upon this religious linkage to some extent; because even today, many sporting events start with a prayer to the sun god.  Religious schools in particular have religious rites and worship inter-connected to their athletic programs.  Hence, there is a religious implication in many sporting events. 

 

Eastern martial arts and contact sports are typically connected closely to the Eastern religions.  One finds this especially in Judo, Karate, etc in Japan and similar practices in China and other parts of the East.  Many of these human conflicts involve prayer and devotion to the Eastern gods.  People in the Christian West, who pick upon these arts, usually pick upon the religious implications as well. 

 

Next, there is no provision for sports and athletic events in the Scriptures, as Josephus correctly noted.  Since they are not present for people in the Hebrew culture, should believers automatically assume that they can then be adopted and practiced?  No, of course not! 

 

 

More Reasons 

 

Otherwise, there are several more reasons.  The events instill idolatry (over the teams and players), pride, vanity and competitiveness in the participants and fans alike.  In effect, competitiveness is a facet of pride which is condemned in the Book.  Why would one do things to build up idolatry, pride and vanity? 

 

This reality surfaces with regularity in sporting events all over the world.  The Jan 21, 2002, “Time” (p. 67) carried the story of a hockey fan named Thomas Junta who murdered Michael Costin over a hockey game on July 5, 2000, in Reading, Massachusetts.  Costin was the referee and Junta’s son was a player.  Junta didn’t like the calls and beat Costin to death at the hockey stadium. 

 

This same “Time” also outlined other American sporting events which illustrated the fantastic idolatry and utter fanaticism associated with sports.  In 1999, a chunky football dad and youth league coach assaulted a nine year old player and a Virginia soccer mom attacked a referee.  In 2000, a Staten Island father broke the nose of the coach of his ten-year old son and so it goes. 

 

Moreover, sporting events also often involve public nudity which, of course, is unscriptural, as will be elaborated upon in some detail in comments to follow.  This nudity and the events providing for it generally instill lust among both participants and fans alike. 

 

Why would believers want to watch exposed people and develop passion and lust and particularly today when most of the athletes are Blacks and the fans are generally White.  Yes, White girls lust after Negro athletes--especially in the nudity of basketball. 

 

 

Some Really Dark Stuff 

 

Furthermore, these events encourage gambling, drinking, drunkenness, partying and reveling among both participants and fans.  Why would believers be involved in such questionable practices? 

 

Not only are many of the competing athletes themselves heavily involved in drugs, adultery, and other immoral activities, they end up promoting these same qualities in today’s youth who look up to athletes as idols and gods.  These athletes generally paint very sick pictures for young children to be devoted to and obsessed over because of their skills. 

 

The next pathetic feature of sports is linked to the just mentioned reality of gambling.  While the issue of gambling and betting on games primarily concerns the fans and spectators, it sometimes goes even beyond that feature to the players and participants. 

 

For example, the famous baseball player Pete Rose of the Cincinnati Reds a few years ago was a well known gambling figure.  It was never conclusively proven that he bet on his own games, but that possibility must be entertained.  Rose apparently was one of the great baseball players of all time and ultimately lost out on many honors and recognitions simply because of his ties to the gambling world. 

 

Routinely, in modern times, scandals seem to be erupting with regularity in most sporting activities.  It seems to be common, routine and regular that athletes are caught using drugs and steroids of various kinds to supposedly help them in their performance.  But that’s only the beginning of the corruption on-going in sporting events. 

 

 

The Olympics 

 

The 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah had several questionable things take place.  Perhaps the most notorious scandal in Utah concerned the revelation by a French woman judge (Marie-Reine Le Gougne) that she had voted against the Canadians and for the Russians in a fix in the figure skating event (Feb 22, 2002, “The Week,” p. 13, 17). 

 

Part of the problem that fueled this question to the revelation point was that the skaters performed before a world-wide audience, via live television.  As the Feb 25, 2002, “Time” (p. 5) put it-- “a wobbly Russian routine took the gold and a flawless Canadian one the silver.”  Obviously, something was wrong with the judging process.  This prompted Marie to make her revelations. 

 

It was largely unclear what all the motivations were that made Marie, as the swing voting judge, throw the outcome of the match.  She said that French officials pressured her to give the victory to the Russians.  Although there will remain speculation on this question, it is not difficult to allow that gambling or international politics were involved at a very high level. 

 

Incidentally, the just quoted Feb 22, 2002, “The Week” (p. 17) had an article on this subject which was entitled “Skating scandal:  Are the Olympics corrupt?”  Well, the answer here is yes.  All of the contemporary sporting events are corrupt to some extent.  It would be a rarity today to find a major event without some corruption or scandal associated with it. 

 

Although the February 25, 2002, “Time” magazine did not directly attempt an answer to the question of Olympic corruption, as posed by “The Week,” “Time” (p. 30) did review “A Century of Medal Disputes” --namely the 20th century. 

 

The problems/questions/corruption started in 1908 in London when judges supposedly awarded the gold to the wrong person in a figure skating event (it turned out that one of the judges was a personal friend of the person awarded the medal).  Similar issues/controversies surfaced in Stockholm in 1912, in Munich in 1972, in Barcelona in 1992, in Littlehammer in 1994 and in Nagano in 1998. 

 

The only thing one can say about the question of Olympic corruption is that it seems to have become worse in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.  The future does not look good as Olympic corruption and dishonesty now seems to be largely in place.  

 

 

Another Note 

 

Last, a news broadcast on December 31, 1997, focused upon the then upcoming Rose Bowl football game.  It revealed a most fascinating little fact.  The news reporter talked about the Rose Bowl stadium in Pasadena, California and mentioned that it was built in 1922, based upon a design from ancient Greece. 

 

This writer is not very familiar with the architecture associated with the buildings and stadiums used by the ancient Greek sun worshippers, but it appears that modern sun worshippers copy them for their buildings and facilities. 

 

 

Circuses, Theaters, TV and Movies  

 

The subject of circuses, theaters, television and motion pictures is a little more complicated than the obvious outright problems with modern sports and athletic performances (with the religious implications, as noted above). 

 

On the one hand, circuses generally and live theater performances frequently involve nudity, sexual depravity and/or other themes which make them totally unsuitable for watching.  Idolatry is common when people begin to adore and revere their entertainment heroes as usually occurs. 

 

Most of these live entertainment activities inevitably involve the integration and mixing of the sexes (and now, races in modern America) which is manifestly wrong, as will be established in succeeding chapters.  Clearly the circuses and live theaters have their origins in the old sun worship cults. 

 

Too, there is the reality that many theater performances are built on lies and fiction to such an extent that truth is badly imperiled.  In telling about his movie career, actor Marlon Brando put out a video in 2002 entitled “Lying for a Living,” designed to teach young actors about the acting profession (Apr 19, 2002, “The Week,” p. 8).  Of course, this message really hits home on the acting business. 

 

Consequently, it is easy to write theaters, circuses and most live performances off as being bad and unscriptural.  Perhaps some of these realities prompted Josephus to take a stand 2,000 years ago against theaters and amphitheaters, as well as sports and sporting arenas. 

 

Josephus wrote that they were foreign practices to Jews and Judaism (quoted by Dr Emil Schurer in “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” v. I, p. 33, division 2).  Hence, the people of YHWH would not be in attendance at such depraved places. 

 

 

Television 

 

One can almost put television and the movies in the same category.  There are a couple of differences though which might make “some” TV and “home” videos less questionable and a little more acceptable.  First, these activities can be viewed in private in a home and under the supervision of a parent in the context of children. 

 

Too, part of this stuff can be extremely educational and beneficial.  For example, a TV news broadcast has merit to keep the elect informed on world affairs (as they are commanded to watch, to be later discussed). 

 

There is a downside on TV, however, with the evidence of biased reporting and subliminal messages, to be later assessed.  So while “some” television might have limited value and appeal, one must be very careful about viewing the tube. 

 

Certainly, a loving parent would have to spend some time in prayer and thought before allowing children to watch most of this stuff, even if it is educational. 

 

Actually, there are any number of radio news broadcasts and often one every hour on the hour.  So it is possible to keep abreast of events without TV.  Also, newspapers are available, although they are just as biased and slanted as radio and TV programs. 

 

 

The Present Depravity 

 

The present, Western, sun worship culture and civilization are absolutely depraved, wicked and sick beyond description.  While there are several reasons for this utter depravity, assuredly much of the impetus has come from Hollywood which has been making extremely bad films for ages. 

 

Not only is it true that many of the people involved in the entertainment industry are socially and morally sick, but the work they turn out is of the same caliber. 

 

“Some” few home videos are possibly in a more acceptable position and particularly if they are older (with a less chance of subliminal messages and common vulgarity) and/or might be produced by a trustworthy agency (like the Prophecy Club).  Many documentaries and indeed movies are extremely educational and hence valuable, although they must be addressed in the context of the above comments. 

 

The Ultra Orthodox Jewish religious community in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem (to be addressed in some detail in later comments) has an interesting slant on the question of secular radio, television, books, papers, magazines, movies and entertainment. 

 

This stuff is simply forbidden to its people.  The elders warn the people that the outside world is nothing but “whores and thieves” (Dec 13, 1999, “Newsweek,” p. 52).  While it would be possible that evil sun worshippers would look down upon and laugh at the Ultra Orthodox people and their teachings about the evils out in the secular world, there is much truth in what they say, in the generic sense. 

 

Even in the modern Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, New York, the people in the Satmar Hassidic sect of the Ultra Orthodox do not own TV sets (Jul 6, 2001, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 27).  Many of the children know only Hebrew or Yiddish (and no English, until they learn it in school).  The “rabbis” say that they don’t need English. 

 

 

Dancing 

 

One of the approved cultural activities allowed in the Book is dancing.  The Word is precise.  Believers should praise and worship The ELOHIM in timbrels and dancing (Ps 149:3; 150:4). 

 

Dancing was a fairly common cultural reaction in ancient Yisrael in the context of dances following military victories, at the harvest festivals and importantly at the commencement of the Sabbaths.  Yirmeyahu wrote that the virgin should rejoice in dancing (Jer 31:4, 13).  On occasion, groups of women danced, sang and played timbrels (Ex 15:20-21; Jud 11:34; I Sam 18:6).  David danced (II Sam 6:14). 

 

And on one of the rare times when men and women could apparently do some mixing in a social activity, dancing was seemingly proper at weddings (per “Soncino Books of the Bible,” translation and commentary at Ps 45:14-16 and S of S 7:1-2.  See also I Macc 9:37-39). 

 

While this writer cannot determine the exact form that these Scripturally approved dances should take, there is an absolute certainty that they were not ever sexually revealing or enticing. 

 

They were expressions of praise, joy and happiness, without any presence of sexual overtures or even close personal contact among participants.  Likely, they were Hebrew folk dances, involving groups of men or women or perhaps even some persons individually--like David. 

 

One can assuredly bank on it that these Scriptural dances were a far cry from what is visible in the contemporary Christian sun worship culture.  Much of modern dance is very vulgar and dirty with roots that go back to very primitive, Black, African dances promoting demonic trances and promiscuous sex.  Whatever else may be said about Negroes, it is evident that they have natural rhythm and can dance. 

 

Having mentioned the popularity and acceptability of dancing, there are some qualifications however.  Shlomo put it all in the right perspective when he wrote that there is a particular time for dancing--just as there are times for other activities (Eccl 3:1-4). 

 

Moreover, it is manifestly mandatory that any dancing done conform to YHWH’s laws and rules for men and women.  The need for gender separation seems established and certainly women must be properly covered.  These requirements will be assessed in a subsequent chapter. 

 

 

Public or Private? 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 5, p. 1264) gives the historic Jewish position which is relevant to consider.  The point is made that dancing in public was often forbidden by the “rabbis.”  On this, one must understand that dancing at a marriage or Bar Mitzwot is hardly the same thing as dancing on Broadway or at a disco club in NY City. 

 

Usually marriages and other family occasions are extremely private matters--limited to the families, a few friends and members of the religious fraternity.  In this sense, it would be wrong to call them public, as evidently envisioned by the “rabbis.”  They are a quasi-public function at best. 

 

 

Music and Song 

 

Later chapters will further address modern music and song in the context of the popular, secular culture and from different perspectives.  There is no intent to really cover the subject in any detail at this time.  But some attention is needed and particularly on rock n’ roll which has completely dominated the Christian West for 50 years. 

 

Manifestly, rock n’ roll is essentially nothing but a demonic jungle beat from the jungles of Black Africa (later chapters herein will discuss at some length the use of drums in Black music to call down the demon gods--and that’s what black music is all about).  All forms of it are bad. 

 

 

Ferriday, Louisiana 

 

For many long years now, Blacks have had essentially Black hang-outs which specialize in Black music, drinking, eating chitterlings or fired chicken, gambling (usually dice), knife fights, and plenty of copulating and fornicating.  Remarks hereafter will discuss at length one of these African hang-outs in the Mississippi Delta. 

 

Generally, White people did not and do not frequent these Negro hang-outs--other than a few White whore women who go there to get picked up and engage in interracial sex with the Africans. 

 

The little town of Ferriday, Louisiana used to have (and probably still has) at least one of these popular Negro beer joints (similar White places are known as honky-tonks in the White culture). 

 

Over the years, this one Black joint had everything the typical Negro could want--Black music (as a pianist would pound out some Black blues and what later would be called rock n’ roll), much eating (chitterlings, fried chicken and other soul food items), room to shoot craps and have knife fights, and of course, plenty of Black girls to copulate with, either on the dance floor or at some other convenient place. 

 

As the demonic beat picked up, the dancing would become more vulgar, raunchy, and dirty.  Of course, the Blacks simply loved it. 

 

Women, with low cut dresses (which allowed their breasts to pop out) that were split down the sides (to show off their legs and equipment) would produce quite a sexually arousing display as they entered a demonic trance to shake, wiggle, hump and rock n’ roll with the black men (which inevitably led to mass fornication, either on the dance floor, in a nearby booth, a nearby car, outdoors in the woods or wherever). 

 

 

Two White Boys

 

Back during WWII, there were two small White boys, actually cousins, who got quite a thrill, charge or something out of going down to this Black joint in Ferriday and watching the Blacks have their frolicking good time and fun.  The boys had a peek place where they could secretly watch the proceedings from outside without actually being inside or detected and known by the Blacks. 

 

One of the boys was interested in music and probably this was his motivation.  Like Benny Goodman, Al Jolson and others mentioned earlier, many Whites have come to realize that Blacks have enormous talent in music and rhythm.  Hence, persons interested in popular music inevitably have some desire to watch and listen to Negro performers. 

 

Obviously, this one boy must have enjoyed the blues and rock n’ roll sounds put out by the Negro piano player.  He was surely engrossed and fascinated by it. 

 

The other White boy involved was a Christian boy who seems to have taken his Sunday School and other outright Christian pagan realities seriously.  He was, what some would say, a classic prude.  In any case, he went along with his cousin to watch the antics, frolicking, fornicating and carrying on by the Negroes at this drinking and fornicating place. 

 

But to what extent the Christian boy enjoyed the wild sex and jungle manifestations going on in the Black joint (as the two boys would spy on the Negroes) probably is open to debate.  However, the Christian boy did not like the music.  He called it “the Devil’s music” (and actually, in a strange way, he was right; as will be proven in later chapters on the occult changes in Christianity). 

 

However, other people had other words to describe the African jungle beat.  Many American Whites, especially in the South, simply called it “Nigger music.”  Other people, perhaps in Britain and parts of Europe, called it a “Savage Animal Rhythm.” 

 

 

Success

 

The two boys were named Jimmy and Jerry.  At some point in time, Jerry took up the piano and began playing it professionally (it was said that he had a “God given talent”). 

 

This Negro music that Jerry had absorbed as a child must have impressed him and particularly as the rock n’ roll beat was propelled into America’s national music spotlight in the 1950s with the book (by Evan Hunter) and movie called “Blackboard Jungle.” 

 

By 1956, Elvis Presley was on the scene with his blend of country, Black blues and Black rock n’ roll.  Presley was an almost instant success as he would wiggle and move his hips while playing his guitar.  The gullible, stupid, young, American girls simply loved the vulgar, demonic beat and sexual implications. 

 

Since Jerry was quite proficient on the piano, he was able to pick upon the Negro music so much so that he too was immediately propelled into stardom.  This came in late 1956 when Jerry and one of his cousin colleagues went into the record studio in Memphis, Tennessee which gave Presley his start (however, this producer sold his contract with Presley, worth millions, for a mere $35,000). 

 

The Memphis record producer liked Jerry’s music and put out his first hit record (“Crazy Arms”) in late 1956.  Soon, within the next year, Jerry had several top hits (including “Whole Lotta Shaking Goin On,” “Great Balls of Fire,” and “High School Confidential” which came out in a movie).  In fact, Jerry’s “Great Balls of Fire” knocked Presley’s “Teddy Bear” out of first place on the popularity charts. 

 

With Presley entering the US Army (from the draft) in early 1958, there was some belief among many that Jerry would become the King of Rock n’ Roll.  He was in a position to be completely number one.  He appeared on the Steve Allen Show and was raking in the money from his fantastic popularity in 1957. 

 

But two events came in early 1958 which virtually destroyed Jerry.  Whereas he was, in 1957, a number one American entertainer (who was pushing at Elvis Presley and ready to become the King of Rock n’ Roll); he quickly became a has been and no more (in other words, his telephone quit ringing). 

 

 

Identifying Jerry 

 

Jerry was, of course, the once famous Jerry Lee Lewis (called the “Killer” and the “Wild Man of Rock”).  His story was told in a writing by his wife Myra, which was made into a movie called “Great Balls of Fire” --with Dennis Quaid, Winona Ryder (yes, the apparent Amalekitess who gained some fame in 2002 by shoplifting in California, as noted earlier) and Alec Baldwin. 

 

The comments herein on Jerry and Jimmy (somewhat) come essentially from this biographical movie.  In the movie, Baldwin plays the part of Jerry’s cousin Jimmy--who also gained enormous American popularity and fame in the 20th century in the religious business (of conning money from the Christian suckers). 

 

Later chapters will tell more about Jimmy (in a discussion on hypocrites) and assess what happened in 1958 to virtually destroy Jerry Lee Lewis (in a presentation on the power of the US media to make or break people).  But the point here is that rock n’ roll is effectively demonic Negro music from the jungles of Black Africa.  It is not good! 

 

 

Rock N’ Rap 

 

In the early 21st century, there is something on the popular music scene called rock n’ rap (which is totally Black in origin and involving a blend of traditional rock and the new popular rap music).  This stuff is totally and completely the Devil’s music (as Jimmy characterized it many years ago).  It is very vulgar and demonic.  A later chapter addressing the occult changes in Christianity will further assess it as a part of rock. 

 

 

More On Music 

 

Other than the modern demonic jungle music of Blacks (which now predominates in the Christian world, in the form of the various deviations of rock), this writer is not necessarily opposed to secular, cultural music, per se. 

 

Certainly, much of it probably is bad, though some of it might be acceptable.  Perhaps each individual selection or type of music or song must be evaluated upon its own merits.  Many of the classical pieces are both inspiring and beautiful. 

 

Manifestly, some music, like Christmas music, is almost all questionable right off of the bat.  This writer is in no mood to sing songs about Santa Claus.  Anything which honors Christmas, Easter (like Irving Berlin’s “Easter Parade”) and the other heathen holidays seems out of the question. 

 

Beyond the enormous problems in assessing music and song in the secular sense, there are far more bigger problems in the vein of religious music.  Certainly, none of us could argue with singing the Psalms.  After all, they were written to be sung.  The same is true with all or much of the five Megillot (which were mentioned in a previous chapter). 

 

 

Christian Songs 

 

However, when a person enters the world of pagan, sun worshipping Christianity (where songs are sung to the heathen sun god Gee-Zeus, the Lard or Gawd), there can be some obvious problems.  Some of the Sardis Sacred Name groups have taken these pagan Christian songs and reworked them to get rid of the pagan names.  This may or may not be the right thing to do. 

 

Of course, if someone or some group wants to sing those songs, they can redo them, as far as the names are concerned.  From my own perspective, there is still some suspicion that there just remains too much paganism since their source was originally heathen Christianity. 

 

There is some Christian music which, on the surface, seems to be very beautiful and filled with possibilities as they may show some reverence and praise to The HIGHEST.  Certainly, songs like Jerusalem and Amazing Grace seem to fit into this category.  Ava Maria, How Great Thou Are and many other Christian songs are very beautiful, but their words or messages are bad. 

 

However, irrespective of the so-called beauty and inspiration of such songs and even if their words or messages can be re-worked to get rid of the paganism, the songs must still be approached cautiously (as their origin involves heathen Christianity).  If there is one general rule on Christian songs and music, it would have to be for the true believer to stay away from most of it.  There are too many possibilities of sin. 

 

 

A Friend, Revisited 

 

This writer has a Charismatic, Sacred Name friend (mentioned in a prior chapter).  Though he is alleged to be a Sabbathkeeper, he periodically goes to a heathen Christian Church on Sundays to worship with them.  He says he likes the music (which is, of course, heathen sun worship music, praising the sun god, etc). 

 

Actually, what he probably likes is the Christian worship ritual which in Holy Roller Churches typically involves singing, clapping, emotionalism and having fun.  Yes, the concept of worship in most Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches is that it consists largely of an opportunity to get together to have fun and a good time (especially in singing, shouting, tapping feet and clapping to an upbeat tune). 

 

Of course, this can include an emotional sermon which stirs the pot of how righteous they are and how bad and evil other people are.  All Christians, and certainly this includes all Holy Roller Christians, love to be told how righteous and good they are in this world of evil and sin.  Christians delight in hearing an inspiring message in this vein. 

 

But the examples from the Scriptures, Temple and Second Temple synagogues suggest that true worship is a learning process (of reading/discussing the Torah) and of reverence (proper fear) and praise of The ELOHIM.  It is not a time to clap and have fun. 

 

This friend of mine once asked me if i didn’t like to sing those Christian songs?  And the answer is--i don’t like those songs or music. 

 

So, no, i don’t want to clap and have fun or get a tingling in my spine while singing those upbeat, rock, Christian songs or listening to the sanctimonious music (this fall out describes the music at many of the Holy Roller Churches where much of the expression is one of having fun and a good time). 

 

There is no way that this writer will go into a heathen, sun worship, Holy Roller Church to sing songs to Gee-Zeus, Gawd or the Lard, and clap and have fun with a tingling up my spine. 

 

 

Holding Hands in a Circle, Revisited  

 

Historically, sun worshippers go in for meeting in a circle and holding hands.  The Christian religion is notorious for this where the worshippers meet and form a circle, hold hands and pray to the sun god Gee-Zeus (as mentioned in a prior chapter).  Other religions do it as well.  But the problem extends beyond false religions to the entire culture. 

 

Many families will join hands around the circle of a dining table to hold hands and say a prayer before eating.  School teachers often have children hold hands and join in a circle for instruction, etc.  Even children tend to find occasions to form a circle and hold hands as a part of playing (like a merry go around or around a May pole on May day). 

 

There are two questionable features about this practice of holding hands in a circle; and especially, in the sense of a public ritual.  First, its origin is clearly from the sun worship cultures, as discussed previously in the explanation of the word “church.” 

 

And secondly, the practice might be extremely dangerous because it opens the door to the possibility of the transference of demons in a similar way that the laying on of hands opens the door to a transference of demons, as discussed elsewhere herein (especially if the act is religious in nature). 

 

While a man, his wife and his children privately holding hands “might be” one thing allowable, the practice of holding hands in a circle certainly becomes questionable and undesirable in a public ceremony (like in a Christian Church).  

 

 

Shaking Hands

 

One of the common cultural realities of our time is the practice of people shaking hands in contact and particularly on introductions.  This practice used to be the norm among men.  As for as men’s contacts with women, it was more usual for men to not shake the hands of women; instead opting for standing up, removing one’s hat and in some cases men have historically kissed the hands of women. 

 

But in the late 20th and early 21st centuries the question has evolved to the point now that both men and women shake each others’ hands.  There is little or no distinction in this practice now between the sexes. 

 

On this theme, the Word does have a view which is most interesting--Exodus 23:1 “Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.” 

 

While the focus of this commandment is on the matter of people shaking hands in a court litigation (whereas it should be unthinkable that a person would shake hands with his opponent or adversarial witnesses in that they are presumed to be wicked people), it can have far reaching implications on some examination in the vein that YHWH’s mitzwot actually teach principles.  

 

Anyway, the principle here is plain enough.  One should not shake hands or even touch an evil person.  The touch idea is essential to grasp because of the role of ritual purity and uncleanness which will be more extensively addressed in the following comments. 

 

Therefore, should a person shake the hand of an evil person based on Exodus 23:1?  Well, based on the principle involved, the answer has to be no.  Despite the cultural acceptance of this practice, the better option is to keep your hands in your pockets or just don’t shake hands with evil persons.  So when evil politicians --like Bill “Slick” Clinton and/or Barney “the fag” Frank-- stick their hands out for a shake, the proper response should be no way Hose.

 

 

Touching the Unclean

 

Much of the book of Leviticus and even portions of Numbers and Deuteronomy deal with the matter of uncleanness and particularly from the aspects of ritual and sanitation.  Previous chapters herein have addressed some of these themes (like on the matter of unclean cats and dogs).  Later chapters will focus on most of them more extensively--especially on food and sexual impurity. 

 

Without attempting here of presenting unnecessary duplication of this material elsewhere covered, this section will offer a few comments on the question of a believer touching something/someone that is unclean.  The general rule is simple--don’t do it. 

 

In most instances, the dilemma of touching something/someone unclean is that the innocent person having contact with the unclean becomes unclean himself.  Perhaps this aspect of the problem is what is behind the prohibition of shaking hands with an evil man.  Possibly there is some prospect of the innocent person becoming evil when accepting evil/an evil person through contact.   There is too the matter of transference of demons, as discussed above. 

 

Once a believer becomes unclean through contact/touching the unclean, the usual solution in the Word is that the uncleanness continues until the evening when bathing rectifies the matter.  Thus, the uncleanness typically only lasts for one day assuming the innocent party bathes and cleans himself up.

 

The matter of sexual uncleanness will be covered in some detail in later chapters herein.  Suffice to say, people become unclean for a day after sexual intercourse and must bathe to clean up (Lev 15:16-18).   A woman becomes unclean for seven days during her period (Lev 15:19-30). 

 

In both instances, and in many similar ones, it isn’t only that the involved people become unclean but everything they touch or have contact with becomes unclean.  Consequently, when a person shakes the hand of a woman during her period or has physical contact with objects which have become unclean from the woman, he becomes unclean.  The ensuing problems of this teaching are quite manifest--like what does a man and his wife do when she is having her period?

 

“Esquire” magazine’s A. J. Jacobs, a Jew, addressed the issue of shaking hands some time ago when he spent a year allegedly obeying some of the Scriptural rules and commandments.  

 

Jacobs’ solution was simple.  He just refused to shake hands with strangers.  Through that way, he could for sure avoid touching an unclean woman or evil man.  In terms of his wife, he quit sleeping with her.  And for their meals, he became the cook for the seven days that she was unclean.

 

Beyond all the clear aspects of this issue, there is too the reality that Scripturally the nokri/nekar aliens are apparently in some form of uncleanness automatically by birth.  Maybe that was the situation with the Syro-Phonecian woman discussed earlier herein.  In raising this prospect, this writer is certainly not being dogmatic that the nokri/nekar peoples are unclean, per se.  But one must keep that option on the table. 

 

On this subject of touching others and physical objects which could be unclean, one must use his head and do the best he can.   So often, we simply don’t have knowledge of the uncleanness.  Thus, over time, whenever we go to places outside our home and sit down in a chair used by others, we invite the possibility that the chair was used by an unclean person. 

 

Maybe this possibility is one of the reasons why the election must become separatists and segregationists as far as contact with others are concerned.  The Word teaches the believer to be kodesh (set-apart and separate).  It makes no sense to go out in society and have contact with people at random without any concern over the questions of uncleanness and purity. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 238--Modern Sun Worship Culture IV

 

 

The Occult and Paranormal 

 

Future chapters will describe the incredible presence and pervasiveness of the modern paranormal phenomenon and its incorporation into the realm of New Age theology which is now being merged with Christendom to form a New Age Christianity.  Right now, the occult is all over the Christian American scene. 

 

Without repeating what all has already been said or will be said later in the sense of the on-going change in Christianity, it would be well to go on record that this stuff is wrong.  Moreover, it is not new.  It has been around for ages and has always been condemned (Ex 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18; Num 22:6; 23:23; I Sam 28:3, 7-25; II Kg 9:22; Ezek 21:21; Dan 2:2, 10, 27; 8:9-11; Acts 16:16; 19:13). 

 

Of course, there are a host of specific Scriptures which define these occultic practices as sin (Ex 20:3-6; 22:18; Lev 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; Deut 13:5; 18:9-14; I Sam 15:23; II Kg 21:6; 23:24; I Chron 10:13; II Chron 33:6;  Isa 8:19; 19:3; 29:4; 44:25; 47:9-13; Jer 10:2; 27:9; 29:8-9; Ezek 12:23-24; 13:6-9, 23; 22:28; Hos 4:12; Mic 3:6-7; 5:12; Nah 3:4-5; Zech 10:2; Mal 3:5; Gal 4:9-11; 5:19-21; II Thes 2:8-9; Rev 21:8).

 

To complicate things, the modern occult world takes many forms and shapes and goes under many different names.  Literally, there are thousands of diverse practices out there. 

 

Without attempting to begin to list them, a few of the major ones must be mentioned--fortune telling, healing by magic, astrology, Witchcraft, Voodoo, Satanism, mediums, charming, superstition, magic, drugs (hallucinogenic), party games, cults (Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Christian Science, etc), false religions and doctrines (yoga, reincarnation, mythology, Buddhism, etc), and lodges and fraternities (any group using an oath or teaching outside the Scriptural admonitions). 

 

One more word must be said on fortune tellers, diviners, tarot card readers and so forth.  Per the Apostle Shaul’s encounter with the girl at Philippi, the origin for this reality is made clear (Acts 16:16-22).  For sure, it involves demonic spirits which can take control of the mind and functioning of a person--evidently by mental telepathy, as discussed earlier.  These powers are very evil and need to be cast out. 

 

 

The Psychic World 

 

The subject of psychic methods and practices in the contemporary society will be addressed in a future chapter.  Suffice to say, one must be very suspicious and cautious in dealing with people who reportedly possess these powers.  Fortune telling and so forth may seem simple enough.  But they can open the door to far more serious implications. 

 

The “Dreamland” radio program of Feb 4, 2001, had an English psychic on named Robert ?, who has had some success using his powers in Britain.   In one instance, he played an important role in the solving of the Yorkshire serial murder case of recent years. 

 

A US caller on the program noted that he, too, seems to have these powers--in the vein of something black or negative.  The caller said that he has predicted a number of deaths--including both strangers and people well known to him.  

 

The psychic asked the caller two questions.  Had he ever been involved in an injury or illness which was extremely bad or traumatic for him.  And two, had he ever played with a ouija board.  The caller didn’t have much on the health thing, but remarked that many years earlier, his aunt had given him a ouija board. 

 

This whole discussion reminds one of the situation with Ellen G. White, the false prophetess of the Seventh day Adventist Church.  Poor Ellen was hit in the head by a rock thrown by another child when she was small.   She almost died.  Later in life, she had these mysterious powers of entering into a trance state to supposedly have her visions on religious matters.  

 

Her situation was discussed in a former chapter on the seven assemblies.  Suffice to say, when a person undergoes a traumatic experience, his or her life seems to be opened up to demonic forces--some of which may masquerade as good spirits, performing acts of good (as was accepted by the dumb Adventists following Ellen).   

 

Manifestly, playing with a ouija board can be more dangerous than playing with a rattle snake.  The ouija board seems to open one’s life to all kinds of demonic problems.  It is no wonder that Acts 19:19 has such a powerful message on this theme--as will be broached next. 

 

 

Acts 19:19 

 

In addressing the physical properties involved and used in the occult world (like the books, potions, drugs, cards, ouija boards, Voodoo dolls, etc), the Book is quite clear.  They should be burned and destroyed (Acts 19:19). 

 

Suffice to say, these occult practices seem to largely involve demons and demonic powers.  Generally, they are very dangerous and should be avoided by real believers in YESHUA (despite their popularity).  Yet, the contemporary Western, Christian culture is just full of this stuff.  An innocent person, not wanting to be involved in it, meets it at every corner of the street. 

 

The future chapters on the movement to the occult (as a part and parcel of modern Christianity) will assess some of the different modern motions in some detail.  Needless to say, the occult is pervasive and is present throughout the modern society. 

 

 

Occultic Signs and Symbols 

 

While the use of occultic signs and symbols are clearly a part and parcel of the above mentioned paranormal practitioners, it is interesting that the whole, modern, collective population also routinely and regularly use the same signs and symbols as a part of their culture.  The problem is endemic and even among Christians. 

 

A previous chapter addressed the Jewish hexagram symbol and its linkage to the occult and Tantric-Hinduism.  But this Jewish sign is petty and child’s play compared to what one finds in the contemporary, Western, Christian culture and civilization.  There is a proliferate amount of occultic and sun worship symbolism rift throughout the West in its governmental, social, religious and commercial activities. 

 

Besides hexagrams, all kinds of stars are used in the West--including the popular pentagrams which adorn the US flag and the shoulders of generals and admirals in the military.  All of these star symbols are big in Witchcraft and the occult.  An inverted or upside down pentagram (two points up and one down) is specifically a sign of Satan. 

 

It has to be significant that the historic Queen of Heaven (the great mother goddess of Babylon, named Ishtar or Easter, discussed earlier) was often depicted in paintings and artwork with a half circle halo or banner over her head with a number of pentagrams depicted upon the half circle.  

 

From its very earliest days, Christendom duplicated this whole presentation, except they called the woman Mary.  St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome has one on display.  

 

The Christian cross has already been commented upon, with its evil link to historic sun worship.  The flags of many nations (including Great Britain and the Southern Confederacy) have or have had crosses.  Of course, they are popular idolatrous images throughout the West, among not only religious people, but occultic and secular peoples as well. 

 

 

Images Are Popular 

 

Numerous religions are extremely prone to use images, symbols and signs in their rituals and practices. 

 

Witchcraft, Satanism and so forth all make great use of these relics of evil.  In terms of Wicca, it is very common to find her adherents wearing this trash as jewelry or some other presentation on the body or clothes.  Yes, ankhs, crescent moons, Italian horns, crosses, pentagrams, etc are all very popular signs and images used in Witchcraft. 

 

A person can go into any Christian bookstore or other retail outlet handling Christian material and find a host of these sun worship images (especially crosses) for wear on clothes or on the body of Christian people. 

 

Tragically, almost the same thing can be said for Jewish bookstores or retailers who handle Jewish material.  While these Jewish stores won’t carry the common crosses and sun worship signs popular in Christendom, they do sell a huge assortment of hexagrams (the so-called star of David).  

 

 

Schicklgruber 

 

The Amalekite Adolf Schicklgruber and Germany’s National Socialist (Nazi) party adopted the swastika as their favorite sign or symbol which was displayed on their flags, uniforms and on and on. 

 

This uniquely twisted cross links to the Sanskrit “svasti” which means well being or fortune (yes, the so-called “good old Gawd,” Babylonian deity of fortune), and comes from an ancient Greek cross with ends of the arms bent at right angles (Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 682). 

 

The popular swastika is just one more sign or symbol with a pagan sun worship link.  It is particularly nasty because it is very primitive and closely tied to the occult over the ages. 

 

Even the crazy Schicklgruber and portions of his political Nazi party dabbled extensively in the occult (as noted elsewhere herein).  So they were right at home with the swastika.  Tragically, in America, a number of right wing groups (like some Christian Identity and Neo-Nazi sects) have tried to hang onto this evil, sun worship, Nazi sign. 

 

 

The Eagle 

 

Another popular image often attached to the top of US standards, flag staffs and poles is the American eagle.  This one is so American that it adorns American currency and is commonly associated with the US government. 

 

All US military people (with the exception of lower ranking, enlisted naval personnel) have an eagle emblem to wear on their hats and sometimes even on their outer uniforms, on the buttons or near the right or left breast pockets. 

 

Modern Germany, the former Third Reich and the Imperial German nation also have used an eagle symbol extensively on their standards, flag poles and staffs, as well as on government buildings and of course on the uniforms of military people.  Not only have the Germans worn eagles on their hats, but the Third Reich also wore them over the top of the right front pocket and on the sleeves of their uniforms. 

 

So, what is the significance of the eagle sign?  Well, it dates back 2,000 years ago to Imperial Rome where the eagle was the sign or symbol par excellence of the Roman Empire. 

 

Like American and German standards and staffs have an eagle on top, the same practice was observed in the sun worship legions of Rome where they used a long staff with an eagle on top and other signs and flags attached. 

 

The Jews in Second Temple Judaism were much opposed to the eagle images which adorned the staffs and flags of the Roman legions (“A History of the Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ,” v. I, p. 52, division 2, by Dr Emil Schurer).  When Pilate marched his legions into Jerusalem with the eagles displayed, a regular tumult took place among the people (per Schurer). 

 

Dr Schurer noted that, in fact, the Second Temple Jews were much opposed to all images and signs of animals, people, etc (like on money, flags and so forth) on the basis of such being idolatrous and in conflict with the second commandment in the Decalogue (Ex 20:4; Deut 4:16; 27:15). 

 

 

More Roman Ties 

 

Yes, the eagle ties to the ancient Roman Empire are profound in the United States (and other countries as well, like Germany, as cited above).  For example, author F. Tupper Saussy (previously quoted herein) says that no building can rightly be called a capitol unless it’s a “temple of Jupiter, the great father-god of Rome” (Jan-Feb 2003 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 37). 

 

Saussy adds that Jupiter’s mascot was the eagle (a Roman eagle tops the US House of Representatives in the form of the 46 inch sterling silver and ebony wand called the mace).  America’s national motto, “Annuit Coeptus,” came from a prayer to Jupiter (ibid, p. 37). 

 

Another Roman symbol is the fasces, per Saussy.  The fasces is a Roman ax head whose handle is a bundle of rods tightly strapped together by a red sinew.  It symbolizes the ordering of priestly functions into a single infallible sovereign, an autocrat who could require life and limb of his subjects (ibid, p. 37). 

 

A pair of fasces commands the wall above and behind the Speaker’s rostrum in the chamber of the US House of Representatives.  This pair is entwined with laurel which signifies Caesarian military power (ibid, p. 37).  And for years, a fasces symbol adored the back side of the US dime coin (demonstrating further US attachment to the symbol). 

 

In the 20th century, the fasces symbol gained much recognition and acceptance as the symbol of fascism.  It was extensively used and venerated in Rome and Italy in general under the fascist dictator Mussolini. 

 

 

The Symbol of the Medical Profession 

 

The medical profession and its qualities of good or bad will be assessed in future chapters.  But for now, a look is called for on the symbol or identification sign of this profession.  Here, mention is being made to the previously mentioned vertical pole with two serpents intertwined around it and eagle’s wings at the top.  The history and background on this symbol is fascinating. 

 

Just after the Exodus, and while wandering in the wilderness, there was a bad outbreak of snakes biting many of the Israelites.  Numbers died and there was terror in the camp.  So the Israelites prevailed upon Moshe to do something about it. 

 

As was outlined in a former chapter, YHWH told Moshe to make a pole and attach a symbolic bronze snake around it.  Persons bitten by a serpent could find healing and life by looking upon the fiery serpent on the pole (Num 21:6-9).  Of course, the objective was to demonstrate to the people that the serpents were nothing and that healing would come from The EL by obedience, trust and faith. 

 

Naturally, this was well and good for awhile.  But over the centuries, the gullible Israelites turned the symbol into an idolatrous image which they worshipped and offered and paid homage to as if it was divine and a god (II Kg 18:4).  So the understanding Hizkiyahu wisely took action to destroy it around 700 BCE.  And this should have been the end of the matter.  But it wasn’t. 

 

All of a sudden (and it’s hard to say when, but perhaps by the time of the ancient Greek Hippocrates, c460 to c370 BCE), this almost same symbol became the sign of identification for the medical profession.  Doctors, hospitals and medical facilities regularly use it for identification.  Medical personnel in the US military use it as their sign and wear it on their uniforms and place it upon their flags.   

 

But the fallout perhaps isn’t so much over its existence; but rather, that people admire, respect, love, worship and pay homage to it--just as much as the ancient, stupid Israelites stood in awe of it and offered to it.  Truly, this simple image of nothing has became an idolatrous sign which the people love, adore and look to for healing. 

 

Of course, it’s bad enough that they have adopted the same idolatrous image as their ancient forefathers; but tragically, modern people have chosen to put their human doctors also on a god level to be worshipped and adored.  Doctors and modern medicine will be assessed in subsequent chapters. 

 

 

More Symbols 

 

Besides the eagle symbol, discussed above, the US monetary currency is additionally covered with other significant occultic symbols.  The most notable one is the pyramid with the all seeing eye of the Illuminati linked to a new world order on the back of the US one dollar bill. 

 

No one knows for sure how and why this symbol of the Illuminati came to be placed on US money.  But it happened in the days of the Amalekite FDR, who assuredly was intimately connected to both Satan and the Illuminati. 

 

The Western culture has other popular presentations like ankhs, crescent moons, Italian horns and so forth which all come from Witchcraft (as briefly mentioned in the above comments).  Any reverence shown these images immediately convert them into being an idol in defiance of the second commandment (Ex 20:4-6). 

 

The popular and uniquely formed M figure which adorns McDonald’s restaurants does not come from the English alphabet, as some suppose.  Per Dr Rod Lewis, it is a symbol of the Egyptian Satanic Trinity (video, “Shackles of the New World Order”).  Manifestly, the trinity beliefs of both ancient Egypt and Babylon formed the basis for the later Christian trinity. 

 

Any number of occultic images and symbols can quickly be found in almost every daily paper, in advertising, in books, in trinkets, toys, jewelry, fetishes, etc.   There is no end to it since it predominates in the entire, Christian, sun worship West. 

 

Many years ago, this writer was traveling through the Western North Carolina mountains and my car broke down on I-40 in a small town called Marion.  While eating at a local motel restaurant, it was fascinating to see the number of antique items which the restaurant had displayed on its interior walls.  One of the items was an “Old Ouija Board.” 

 

There is no end to the presence of Witchcraft, Satanism and occultic materials in the Western sun worship culture.  The Christian West is full of it.  Almost all of them tie directly or indirectly to ancient sun worship.  No wonder they are so popular. 

 

 

Music Too 

 

This discussion on the occult necessitates a revisit to music (discussed earlier).  Suffice to say, most modern music and especially “rock” in all of its forms (including Christian Rock) involves the “occult” and primitive, Black, “demonic” sounds from the jungles of Black Africa (as previously described).  This stuff is extremely dangerous for listening purposes.  Young, impressionable minds are especially at risk. 

 

 

Military Service 

 

Because of the popularity of war and military aggression in the Christian West, many young people have ended up in the military as a career choice.  This very thing happened to me (for about 13 years or so before a change came to my life).  Starting before WWII (and continuing for many years afterwards), the US had the draft in place.  This required many young men to serve a hitch.  Some just decided to stay on. 

 

The aspects of war and mandatory service will be assessed in comments to follow on how things operate in the Western Christian nations (some of the problems cited are not present with the Israeli military).  For the present, the question must be addressed--should a religious follower of YHWH YESHUA serve in the military in the vein of peacetime or in a career choice? 

 

The answer here is fairly simple--no!  Right off of the bat, the problem is that military people lose all possibilities of freedom of choice and action in terms of obeying the mitzwot of The MOST HIGH.  Once a person is in the service, he must do what the authorities command him to do.  Inevitably, this obedience will take precedence over obedience of YHWH. 

 

For example, it is virtually out of the question to obey a number of mitzwot while in the service.  A military person can’t keep the Sabbath, the feast days, the fast days or any other aspect of righteousness in terms of set apart times.  Even Sunday keeping sun worshippers find that they can’t keep Sunday as a day of rest (though the entire Western, Christian military operates on that premise). 

 

But that’s only part of the problem.  One can’t wear Scripturally required clothes or eat Scripturally required foods.  A person in uniform would never be allowed to use and wear phylacteries or tzitzityot (but would be subjected to various pagan symbols and emblems, as cited in the former chapters).  Pork and other unclean foods are commonly served in military mess halls. 

 

And what would happen to the man who tries to wear a Scripturally required beard?  Or how about a woman who was interested in using a head covering/veil?  Both of these things would be totally out of place in the military service of any Western country (they both will be described and commented upon in later chapters). 

 

There is simply no way for a person interested in YHWH and truth to satisfactorily serve in the military of most all Western, Christian nations.  It is out of the question.  Manifestly, a believer should never undertake a profession or occupation which is going to routinely require violating the Torah. 

 

While one can correctly feed his pets or a few animals on Sabbaths, it would not be wisdom to enter the dairy business and have hundreds of cattle to feed and milk on Sabbath days.  The believer must use his head on this question. 

 

 

War  

 

On the question of war and serving in a war based upon being conscripted in the draft, the issues become substantially more complex.  While it has been an easy proposition for some so-called religious people (like many of the Sardis types and the Jehovah’s Witnesses) to merely claim exemption on the basis of being a conscientious objector, there are actually problems here for the true believer. 

 

War and the military slaughter of various peoples are not expressly prohibited or condemned in the Book (as will be addressed in comments to shortly follow).  The only real occasion, which conclusively arises to cast doubt on the military slaughter of enemies, occurs in the sense of fighting and killing racial kinsmen (the rea) as happened to Yisrael and Yehudah when they divided and began a series of conflicts between themselves. 

 

When this trouble first broke, Yehudah’s King Rechavam prepared his army to march North and attack the Israelites who had broken from his kingdom.  YHWH intervened and said no and that Rechavam was not to fight his brethren (I Kg 12:24).  This single reference is sufficient to raise questions about all civil wars and conflicts between people of the same racial stock. 

 

 

Righteous Wars? 

 

Omitting this first clear exception, the Book otherwise makes it certain that war and military attacks were the proper things to do in some instances.  The promised land of Canaan correctly belonged to Yisrael.  The Canaanites had illegally taken possession of it.  YHWH commanded a war of conquest which demanded that the Israelites slaughter all (100%) of these mixed, mongrel peoples. 

 

During the wars of conquest by Yehoshua, David and so forth, war was the proper course of action.  It was the right thing for Israelites to do in those circumstances.  One can make the case that in subsequent wars of defense, when the Philistines, Amalekites, Greeks, Aramaeans and so forth attacked Yisrael, that the Israelites correctly could fight wars of defense. 

 

However, even in real wars of defense, there will always remain a question about whether the war is necessary and proper or not.  The reason is simply that YHWH is the defender of His people. 

 

If Yisrael would have obeyed Him (in ancient times or likely even today), there would be no need to fight a war because YHWH would defend Yisrael (Ex 14:13, 25, 27, 30-31;15:1-2; 23:20-23).  So, even when Yisrael did go to war, there has to be a question about it (I Sam 8:4-7) and particularly when the wars arose from illegal alliances with the nations (II Chron 16:7-9). 

 

Otherwise, there were military attacks and invasions where any thought of a war of defense was out.  These cases involved the times when YHWH raised up foreign armies to come into Yisrael or Yehudah and conquer it in fulfillment of prophecy and the accomplishment of YHWH’s will.  No believer could ever justify fighting the Assryians or the Babylonians when they came to fulfill YHWH’s will (Jer 25:9-11; 27:4-8; Lam 4:4-10). 

 

Thus, the Scriptures present seem to be a mixed bag of war and military actions being right in some circumstances and being wrong in other situations.  Thus, it is not a question that wars and killings are totally out (as will be shortly discussed below).  There are cases when they are proper and right. 

 

 

Some US Examples 

 

In trying to relate the above allowed instances of war to the United States, it might be possible to rationalize that the US-Indian Wars were justified and right.  In those days, there was a concept of manifest destiny that Ephriam-America’s borders were to stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  In that case, the US was obligated to pursue a war of conquest against the Indians and against the Mexicans in the Mexican war. 

 

Too, in particularly the case with the Indians, there was a justifiable defense consideration.  When the White eyes came in to take their lands, the Indians often responded with great brutality in attacks upon largely defenseless and innocent women and children.  As is true with Mongoloids generally, the Indians were very cruel and brutal.  Often, the Whites simply had to retaliate and kill many of them. 

 

The American War for Independence and the War of 1812 were fought against brethren. Thus, they had to be questionable undertakings--however, the case can be made that they were ordained by YHWH and they did offer a defense consideration. 

 

In the American Civil War, it was brethren against brethren.  Certainly the North was the aggressor and carried the war into the South.  Just as it would have been wrong for Rechavam to invade Yisrael and attack her, the same is assuredly true with the Union in Lincoln’s war of aggression against the South. 

 

So while the Union Army was clearly wrong, how about the Southern Confederates in the sense of fighting against their Northern brethren.  On the surface, one might make the case that a war of defense is allowable (as in the case of ancient Yisrael). 

 

If someone attempts to invade your home, steal your property, rape your women and murder your family, should you act to defend yourself?  And the answer is a positive yes.  There is no question over the Scriptural allowance for self defense.  By the same analogy, one can make the case that it is very proper to fight a war of defense against an invader. 

 

Thus, the Southerners had a right to fight the invading North in the Civil War (just as the earlier Americans probably had a right to fight the invading British troops during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812). 

 

Throughout history, there have been instances where one nation improperly and without justification invaded another nation.  This probably is the situation when the North Koreans invaded South Korea in 1950.  Those South Koreans probably had a Scriptural right to defend themselves and repel the North. 

 

But this thing can become complicated in that in terms of Yisrael the invaders may be servants of YHWH coming to impose His justice on sinning Israelites (as happened with the Asssyrians and Babylonians).  It would be utter foolishness and folly to begin to fight The MOST HIGH.  In this case, the believer likely must flee! 

 

 

US Problems 

 

The primary problem with almost all US wars, and certainly those fought since the Indian Wars, is that the US has become a nation controlled and owned by secret ruling plutocrats (who will be discussed in detail in later chapters).  Routinely, American wars are fought to put money and plunder into the pockets of these super rich people who call all of the shots of importance in Washington (Jas 4:1-3). 

 

No, there is no righteousness involved when a young American boy goes off to some overseas’ post to carry out a war against largely helpless and defenseless peoples (as has happened in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, in the Sudan, in Iraq and so forth).  In fact, none of these wars of US aggression have had anything to do with US defenses. 

 

Since the Indian Wars of the 19th century, there probably has been no US war which was fought in the context of defense.  Even in WWII, there has to be a question about the US role.  Certainly, Hitler went out of his way to try to have peace with both the US and Britain.  As will be discussed in a later chapter, the Japanese were forced by Roosevelt to respond to pressure he had put on them. 

 

This is not to say that Japan and Germany would not have invaded and conquered the US if possible.  In time (after they became more involved in the war), they would have done so; and this would have truly created a need for defense in America.  But in the beginning of the conflict, the US was the aggressor which set the Germans and Japs up for defeat (as will be discussed further in later chapters). 

 

In virtually all US wars and military actions, the US has been the aggressor and almost none of them involved any sense of defense of this nation.  In fact, since the 1880s, most US wars and actions have been promoted and carried out on behalf of the ruling plutocrats (the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and so forth). 

 

Again, except for the US wars against Mexico and the Indians, there seems to be no clear example of a justified American war from history.  US wars routinely have involved US aggression to make profits and gain for the plutocrats and/or other questionable motives and purposes.  Therefore, it is hard to Scripturally support most of these wars.  They generally appear to be wrong. 

 

Even the present constant US attacks on the Muslims seem to be preparatory for YHWH to intervene on their side and execute prophetic judgment upon America.  In other words, the present US wars in the Middle East are helping to lay the groundwork for the Russians and Chinese and their Muslim allies to execute justice upon this nation (Jer 5:15; Ezek 6:1-7).  At that time, no believer wants to oppose YHWH’s will. 

 

 

Reacting to the Draft 

 

So, as America moves closer and closer to Yakov’s Trouble, and YHWH’s righteous and just judgment upon this evil sinning nation, what does a believer do if the state begins a draft process in the vein of a coming WWIII? 

 

There seems to be four options when the draft question surfaces.  First, one can submit to the draft (but this perhaps may be wrong, for the reasons cited above).  On this option, the Seventh day Adventists accept the draft, but with the provision that their people must serve in the medical services.  US authorities go along with this option.  But can it be supported Scripturally?  The answer may be no since it still involves war. 

 

Second, one can claim to be a conscientious objector (which may or may not work).  As noted above, this has been the choice of most Sardis types and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Next, one can accept the reality of going to jail or perform community service for refusing to serve.  And last, some may address the option of leaving the US (which is what some Vietnam objectors did thirty years ago). 

 

Interestingly, the fleeing option may be addressed by real believers in YESHUA long before there is war and the presence of a draft--because the coming invasion and WWIII will be from YHWH.  There may be no apparent reason for true believers to try to knowingly oppose the invaders who will be righteously executing YHWH’s judgment upon a sinning people (unless it is to protect one’s own personal family). 

 

The only thing that some people of faith may perhaps do is to get out as quickly as possible and long before there is a draft in place and the reality of having to violate a US law which may open the door to arrest and imprisonment (on this, many young persons have been leaving the US for Canada for years now, simply because they disapproved of the GWB presidency and the course he chartered for the US). 

 

 

Murder Verses Killing 

 

There is much confusion in Christianity in the vein of attempting to understand the sixth commandment in the Decalogue (Ex 20:13).  The KJV gives this as thou shall not kill.  However, the actual Hebrew text prohibits murder and not killing, per se.  Why the distinction? 

 

Because, in the Torah, certain people are to be righteously killed (like when Eliyahu righteously slew the sun worship preachers on Mount Carmel, as discussed earlier).  In terms of certain criminals, the death penalty was prescribed (in capital cases--like persons caught in adultery, guilty of murder, guilty of transgressing the Sabbaths, etc).  It was not murder for the state to execute these criminals. 

 

As discussed above, there were certain wars of conquest and wars of defense which were mandated by YHWH.  It was not murder to kill the judged peoples in those instances. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 239--Modern Sun Worship Culture V

 

 

Showing Honor and Respect

 

Like all of the topics which one may choose to address in trying to ascertain righteousness and right living, the question of showing honor and respect to people, flags, music and so forth are shrouded in question marks.  Part of the dilemma surfaces because in almost all aspects of the secular world, the general public is regularly faced with that need.  It is extremely pervasive. 

 

Of most sun worship Christian Churches, perhaps the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) have struggled most with this issue.  Often, it has developed that the Witnesses have taken a hard line and they have suffered greatly because of it. 

 

For example, the JWs look upon the question of saluting flags and speaking pledges of allegiance as a matter of paying homage to an image (the flag).  Accordingly, they reject such rituals outright. 

 

This reaction has caused great hurt upon them and particularly on their children who are in the public schools when such events take place.  The other participating children have no compassion or understanding for non-conformists during these school rituals. 

 

There are several complications involved in this subject.  First, it is manifestly true that there is a mitzwah which prohibits paying homage to or serving any image created by man (Ex 20:4-6).  Obviously, the flag becomes an object of respect, honor and indeed worship (plus, many flags contain images which are very evil and adverse from their pagan or occultic origins--like stars, crosses and so forth). 

 

Therefore, any manifestation of devotion towards flags likely does fit into the context of the prohibition covered in the second commandment of the Decalogue. 

 

When a national anthem is played or sung by people in a ceremony, the same question must inevitably arise.  Does a piece of music reflect an image that is also covered by the second commandment?  Well probably, the answer is yes (see Dan 3:15). 

 

 

How About So-Called Human Beings? 

 

Conversely, the next question has to address humans/humanoids (which would not seem to be in the same category as an image, symbol or humanly created object).  Should one draw a line on paying homage, honor and/or respect to other so-called human beings? 

 

Well culturally, it is proper in some cases to stand up in the presence of or when meeting certain others (like important people, the aged, and by all means before women) or bowing before others (as the Japanese routinely bow before other persons).  Obviously, the practice of following a custom in these categories probably is allowable. 

 

 

It Can Be Right 

 

In fact, there is a mitzwah which commands that younger people rise up before a hoary head (Lev 19:32).  Older people are simply due respect, honor and some dignity from younger people.  That’s the Scriptural proscription because the Book stipulates the requirement to show honor and respect to those individuals due honor (Matt 22:21; Rom 13:1, 7; I Pet 2:17). 

 

Routinely, people in the Book saluted, stood up, kneeled to and bowed before others in the apparent vein of showing honor and respect to someone who was due honor and respect (Gen 23:7; 33:1-7; 43:26; 48:12; Ru 2:8-10; I Sam 13:10; 17:22; 24:8; 25:40-41; II Sam 8:10; 24:20; I Kg 1:13-16, 23; Matt 5:47; 10:12; Acts 21:7, 19; Phil 4:21; Heb 13:24). 

 

In Matthew 10:12, the idea of saluting the house is that one is saluting the people that make up the household of the house.  One would not salute a house, per se; but rather, one would salute the people in a house. 

 

Part of this saluting, bowing, standing up and so forth to show honor and respect involves the custom and culture of the society.  Again, Japanese regularly bow to each other on all kinds of occasions.  But the principle seems established that these manifestations are probably correct and would not constitute worship, per se. 

 

The practice of bowing deserves a few more comments.  Most public and culturally bowing is down as a half body bow, from the waist up. 

 

The Scriptures seem to suggest that some part (at least publicly) or all of the bowing before and worshipping of The HIGHEST involves more of a prostration of the body in which the face touches the ground or floor (Num 16:22; I Kg 18:42; Neh 8:6).  Apparently, it was this type of bowing, in the vein of worship, which the Book limits to The HIGHEST (Ex 34:14; Deut 6:13-14; Matt 4:10; Acts 10:25-26; Rev 19:10; 22:8-9). 

 

By all means in bowing or even showing respect to someone or something, the issue must crystallize on the question as to whether the object is a deity of the people or not (yes, the general public and not just the believer). 

 

In terms of a flag or national anthem, the answer is clearly yes since they are generally regarded or treated as national gods by the general population (yes, music was part of the worship described in Daniel 3:15).  It is wrong to bow before them (Ex 20:5; Josh 23:7, 16; Jud 2:12, 17).  However, in the case of fellow humans/humanoids, the idea is generally not one of worship. 

 

 

The Contrary Profile 

 

The contrary profile, on this outpouring of respect and dignity, would be to offer curses, condemnation and reveling towards others.  The Word is clear to avoid these practices and especially with the secular kings and rulers (Ex 22:28; Eccl 10:20; Jer 29:7; Rom 13:1; Titus 3:1; I Pet 2:13-17).  Yes, there is little to be gained by cussing the state out--at least, not publicly, or before other people who might be state spies. 

 

In the case of rulers, even evil rulers, they maintain their power with the allowance of The MOST HIGH (Prov 8:15; Dan 2:20-21, 37; 4:17; Jo 19:11).  Because of this factor, honor showed these kings represents an acknowledgment of YHWH’s choice and sovereignty over them. 

 

Next, the question must focus upon the matter of prayers by the world’s religious people (Muslims, Christians, etc) which the true followers of YHWH YESHUA simply cannot participate in or be a part of (no, this writer is not going to pray to the sun god, as happens among Christians). 

 

Well clearly, it would be sinful and wrong to engage in those prayers publicly with the pagan worshippers.  Again, this writer is not going to pray to the Christian Gawd, Gee-Zeus or the Lard.  There is no justification to be a part of these pagan sun worship exercises.  

 

 

Care Required 

 

Now, how about standing up and showing respect (if the participants are standing up for their public prayers)?  Obviously, this becomes far more complicated than the question of speaking and participating in the prayer.   But as a minimum, one would want to exercise some care in publicly reveling the sun god and his worshippers (Ex 22:28). 

 

There is no reason to publicly make fun of or ridicule the sun worshippers in their heathen practices (although Eliyahu did publicly make fun of the sun preachers in his conflict with them on Mount Carmel--I Kg 18:27).  Usually, any motion in this direction really makes the sun worshippers mad and angry.  Christian sun worshipers are just like the others in this regard. 

 

Years ago, when the question of using pagan names and words for The MOST HIGH first materialized as an issue in the Sardis Church of God (7th Day) entities, some of the so-called “Sacred Namers” would go to a Sardis Gawd Church and sing the words Yahweh or Yahshua every time the pagans sang about the Lard or Gee-Zeus.  This created a lot of hard feelings on the part of the Sardis worshippers. 

 

In any case, the question of standing up to show respect to the sun worshippers engaged in prayer or to a passing flag or a national anthem leaves some serious questions.  As a minimum, the follower of YESHUA would never participate in any vocal expressions to these false deities (in prayers) or images (flags or anthems). 

 

But the matter of standing up becomes more complicated.  Possibly, the better approach is to merely remain seated and offer no participation (not even standing up, although ambassadors would normally stand up for these ceremonies, as will be discussed next). 

 

Though a believer would not want to participate in any of these exercises, surely they would control their conduct to not cause problems or an uproar for those persons who do participate.  In other words, one should practice some restraint and control and not create any turmoil. 

 

 

Ambassadors 

 

The overriding principle in this whole discussion zeros in on the concept that the true believer and follower of YHWH YESHUA is an ambassador of His kingdom (II Cor 5:20; Eph 6:20).  In the role of being an ambassador, a person can usually approach these questions as an ambassador of a foreign nation would broach them. 

 

Would a foreign ambassador salute a flag and speak a pledge of allegiance?  No!  Would an ambassador rise up before the elderly/aged, women and secular leaders?  Yes!  Would an ambassador perform a bow at the waist in meeting royalty?  Yes! 

 

Military attaches are part of an ambassadorial team.  Would they salute higher ranking officers of another nation?  Yes! 

 

Now comes the sticky part, would an ambassador or attaché stand up for a flag, national anthem, prayer or some other act emanating in a public display in a foreign nation.  Usually yes, as just noted above.  Would an ambassador participate in any related ceremony as happens on these occasions (like joining in to sing a national anthem, place one’s hand over his heart, etc).  No! 

 

The point is that ambassadorial people usually show some measure of respect to a host country’s peoples, symbols and images.  But they don’t turn that respect into an participation in ceremonies related to those emblems or symbols. 

 

 

Four Categories of People 

 

In the sense of addressing this question of paying homage, respect, honor or worship to people, images, songs or prayers, it seems to be possible to define four situations which arise in one’s life to make the question come up about how a person should respond. 

 

First, there are mandatory situations (like when a person must appear in court over a legal matter and go before a judge, which requires standing up for the judge). 

 

Next, there are quasi situations where the response is not totally mandatory; but there is great pressure to conform to the existing practice as done by others (like when an employee is forced to go to a meeting in which a flag is raised, a prayer is said, etc). 

 

The third situation involves children who are in a public or private school which offers prayers to the various gods, pledges of allegiance to flags, the singing of a national anthem or some other action as outlined above.  Children subjected to this oppression are in a very vulnerable and precarious position.  It is very hard for them to go against the tide (yes, JW children have suffered greatly in the public schools). 

 

The fourth situation involves those cases where the matter is an entirely optional issue.  In other words, one knows that the national anthem will be played and there will be a public prayer (to the Christian sun god) at most sporting events in the Christian West.  It’s just routine and happens that way. 

 

The Congress opens with a prayer and there are any number of other occasions when a flag is raised, lowered or passes by (like in parades) where the public is expected to stand up and men to take their hats off and place their right hands over their hearts.  Through the years, there is less and less of this stuff (like the ban on prayers in school), but much of it still remains. 

 

 

Reacting 

 

So, how does the believer react to the dilemma of living and existing in this evil sun worship culture without evoking constant hatred and opposition from fellow citizens in the various nations. 

 

In the case of any voluntary or optional attendance, the solution is simple--just don’t go.  The believer should not be at public sporting events or theater performances in the first place.  So it’s moot to even talk about what the believer will do at a football game.  In truth, the believer just won’t be at a football game. 

 

In the case of the trials facing children, the solution is to just get them out of the sorry, depraved public schools (which teaches very little or nothing of value).  As discussed elsewhere herein, a satisfactory private school or ideally home schooling is the best approach. 

 

The situation involving those occasions which the believer finds himself in by having to attend because of a job or some other mandatory profile is not really that difficult to assess in the final analysis.  If one must compromise his beliefs in order to have a particular job, then the best option is to quit the job and find another employer or job opportunity. 

 

The last case is the most trying one of all.  Thus, when unavoidable circumstances mandate the presence of a believer in a undesirable situation, what does the follower of YESHUA do. 

 

Of course, if it is a matter of showing some honor or respect to a human (like a king, a national leader, a judge or some similar person), then the examples cited above seem to say yes that it is right to stand up for the judge, make a half bow before royalty, take one’s hat off in certain situations (like in a pagan courtroom), and so forth

 

Finally, there will ultimately be a mandatory situation in possibly some aspect of the present discussion which will require that a believer refuse the demanded practice.  Once a person refuses the secular state, there can be a serious reaction from the state (like the death penalty).  Revelation 13:15 seems to describe such a coming time. 

 

 

Kissing! 

 

The exploding perverted society (which will be described in detail in chapters to follow) has nurtured the practice of people kissing in public.  In the case of men and women kissing (and especially for married couples, as happened at the 2000 Democrat convention when Mr and Mrs Al Gore kissed), this may not seem to be much of an issue. 

 

But manifestly, a problem does surface in that many homosexual queers and lesbians now publicly kiss (often by mouth to mouth and involving so-called French kissing). 

 

Along with the acknowledged kissing by faggots and queers, the popularity of kissing sometimes does involve the same sexes--two men or two women.  While any such same sex kissings may not always directly involve queers, the door must be left open that such conduct probably does fit into the overall classification of sodomy (as will be addressed in some detail in later chapters herein). 

 

Yet, there are situations in the real world where certain cultures do allow, condone or promote same sex kissing.  This condition sometimes arrives in various European (like France) and Middle Eastern (especially Arab states) countries.  Usually, these cultural kisses involve a kiss on a cheek.  

 

Furthermore, there seems to be a New Testament mitzwah for brethren to kiss each other on occasion (Matt 26:48-49; Mk 14:44-45; Lu 15:20; Acts 20:37; Rom 16:16; I Cor 16:20; II Cor 13:12; I Thes 5:26; I Pet 5:14).  Because of possible homosexual overtures in lips/mouth to lips/mouth kissing, it must be concluded that these kisses were cheek to cheek. 

 

Back in the year 1973, this writer attended Sukkot with the Assembly of Yahweh Sacred Name group in Holt, Michigan (actually, this assembly is near Eaton Rapids, Michigan and not at the address in Holt).  The practice there was that the brethren greeted each other with a cheek to cheek kiss--which seems very Scriptural (both for Spiritual brethren as well as real brothers and sisters in the flesh). 

 

But except for the apparently allowable cultural and religious kisses, on the cheeks, the whole subject seems to be a bad one and especially in any mouth to mouth or more intimate kisses (with one’s tongue).  Because of the adverse implications, this prohibition must logically apply in even heterosexual contacts and between husbands and wives (publicly).  Anyway, it is possible for people to get involved in very bad situations whenever the theme of kissing surfaces.  Of course, there is the mitzwah in terms of the brethren.  But even here, it logically should be limited to cheek to cheek. 

 

Otherwise, one should avoid the whole issue (even married heterosexual couples should not be publicly kissing).  If the culture and society forces it on a person (like in France or an Arab state), then the best idea is to avoid it if possible. 

 

 

Another Growing Modern Problem 

 

As will be described in future chapters, the current Western, Christian civilization is entering a period where people are not responsible for their actions.  Too often, there is a tendency to place responsibility for problems or corrective action with the state (government) rather than recognizing it as belonging to each human being. 

 

One can easily see this pathetic reality developing, and particularly with children. 

 

Since today’s modern children are generally rebellious and totally obsessed with drugs, sex and other useless things of wickedness and sin, many parents don’t want to acknowledge any responsibility for the mess that they have created with their own children.  Therefore, they are more than anxious for the government to take over and to take the blame and to try to correct things. 

 

Too, there is the reality that the population has been pursuing racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation vigorously over the history of Adam and especially in America during the last 70 years.  As the behemah genes have been increasing dramatically in the generic population, more and more people are becoming extroverts, feelers and perceiving in temperament, as discussed earlier. 

 

These personality attributes tend to make a person more careless and irresponsible in his mental attitude and thinking.  This condition has been broached earlier and needs no particular focus here at present.  As noted previously, there might be a question of sin associated with these temperamental aspects of human behavior, although this writer is not taking a stand on that issue presently. 

 

Anyway, things are coming together in the contemporary, modern, Western, Christian West to promote and encourage more and more irresponsibility in human interplay in the culture and in cultural activities.  People simply don’t seem to care about duties and responsibilities.  They seem to be totally engrossed in self--thus, selfish. 

 

 

Selfishness Revisited 

 

Previous chapters have discussed at some length the problems of greed and selfishness (in the vein of human carnality and the flesh).  Since greed is probably better recognized in people than selfishness, nothing more needs to be said here (although greed will be further assessed in subsequent chapters addressing commercialism, which is largely fueled and promoted by human greed). 

 

But some further remarks are needed presently on the question of selfishness since selfishness has become a primary component of the modern, Western, Christian culture.  Selfishness is totally present all around us in almost all aspects of the contemporary society.  Once a person begins to understand its ramifications, it becomes very manifest in almost all humans, as also happens with pride and vanity. 

 

As pointed out in preceding chapters, selfishness involves a violation or transgression of evidently both the first and second commandments in the Decalogue.  Selfish people love and worship themselves first and most and inevitably place themselves even in front of or before The Scriptural MOST HIGH.  This self love is indeed tragic and sick.  But it is the real world out there and very pervasive. 

 

Without repeating all of the former comments offered on this theme, the idea must be recalled here and restated--in the vein of how common it is, and how society has grown to both accept and allow selfishness to completely dominate the entire current culture. 

 

Of course, there are illustrations of where a person is overly and aggressively selfish.  Sometimes, these incidents are fairly easy to spot, define and recognize for what they are.  But more often, selfishness is more subtle and not as readily recognizable (just as in the case of pride and vanity, as discussed in former chapters). 

 

 

The Fall Out of This Selfishness

 

Because of this background in modern man, far too many people are becoming totally selfish without any regard for anybody or anything else (of course, that’s why children smoke tobacco, take drugs and wallow in all forms of sexual activity--they are totally selfish with only a concern to satisfy their human flesh in the here and now and without any appreciation of the futures for themselves, their children, loved ones or anyone else). 

 

Therefore, more and more people are becoming indifferent, irresponsible, careless and could care less about others.  Most people are totally obsessed with themselves and satisfying their pleasures, needs and desires (however good or bad these objectives may be). 

 

In the context of brotherly love, some illustrations were outlined previously of where even people who claim to be Christians, practicing Christian love, could care less about others, to include other Christians.  Today, most people don’t care one whit about anything except themselves (they are truly self worshipping, though they probably don’t understand it or appreciate it in that sense). 

 

So, what we have happening is that increasingly more and more persons are so filled and reflective of the careless, indifferent and irresponsible attitude that they constantly are inconsiderate and could care less about the needs of others. 

 

Of course, they are sinning in the vein of the first and second mitzwot in Exodus 20.  But there has to be even more to this issue because they are simply not expressing the love of their racial kinsmen (the rea) demanded in the Book.  One cannot be indifferent about the needs of his racial kinsman (the rea) and be practicing the love demanded in the Word. 

 

The former chapters outlined the reality that most all people could care less about others.  They are generally in no mood to do any favors for anyone else (rea or not).  They only are concerned about themselves.  The prevailing attitude is “Look, I don’t owe you anything” and “What’s in it for me.” 

 

 

The Essence Here 

 

The tragedy about this whole motion on selfishness is that it is part and parcel of today’s Christian culture and civilization.  Almost everybody thinks in that frame of reference.  It is only a real screwball or weirdo who goes against the cultural trend now in place (and there aren’t many people around like that at all). 

 

The essence here is that the Western, Christian, sun-worship culture has degenerated into a mass of sin and evil.  Surely, judgment will soon come to Yisrael first, and then upon the rest of the world. 

 

 

Stealing 

 

As sorry as pagan Christianity is, most Christians acknowledge that stealing is wrong.  So there is little need to even bring this issue up--other than to note that it is one of the fall outs of pride, greed and selfishness (as discussed above and earlier).   However, there is one aspect of stealing which is fairly common in today’s Christian West.  That type is the matter of plagiarizing the words and ideas of others. 

 

Plagiarizing the ideas and thinking of others is a very bad form of stealing as archaeologist Vendyl Jones points out in his March 2002 “Vendyl Jones Research institutes Researcher” (p. 1), previously quoted. 

 

Jones quoted the Talmud which says:  “He that steals another’s idea is a greater thief than one who steals money” and added that The MOST HIGH condemns a thief of ideas because it  takes away a person’s ability to think and have an original thought of his own.  As Jones noted--these people steal because “their heads and hearts are void of anything that they can call their own.” 

 

Previous chapters have highlighted the fact that many of the Sardis teachers and leaders (and other Christians as well) are notoriously shallow in any personal ability to study the Word and determine anything original on their own.  Many of these persons (especially the SPs) must depend upon others to do original research and bring forth important truths and understanding here in the age end. 

 

This use of the ideas and thinking of other people wouldn’t be so bad if the person would just give a little credit and acknowledgment of where the information came from.  Tragically, many of these Sardis types and others steal the thinking and ideas of others and put much or all of the theft out as original with themselves.  The old gent, discussed in the former chapters on pride, has stolen material from this writer. 

 

One of the most notorious plagiarizers this writer has known is the so-called “Second Moses,” as cited in a previous chapter.  For years, this writer attempted to share things with him (he is a very likable person, but is not strong on personal understanding, as he is a classic SP).  This “Second Moses” would steal material from me and publish it in his own writings as if it was original with himself.  He would never give credit. 

 

This man not only stole from me, but he stole from others as well.  As Jones said--such persons are voided in their heads and hearts. 

 

 

The Sardis Problem 

 

This whole theme brings up the previously discussed situation with the just noted Sardis teachers and preachers (many of whom are classic SPs). 

 

These SP teachers simply lack the skills and determination to do much worthwhile Scriptural study and research.  On their own, they rarely are able to produce anything original in interpretations from the Book.  Whatever they come up with, they usually have to get from others.  This would be no big deal in itself; but in obtaining ideas from others, these persons plagiarize them and claim them for their own. 

 

In offering these comments, this writer has mentioned that i, too, have plagiarized from others (not always intentionally, as this practice can easily happen--either by accident or ignorance in that we do not always know where information came from that has been stored in our minds). 

 

But over the years, in attempting to obey The MOST HIGH, this writer has made some effort to give credit to others in appropriate situations.  The study at hand contains thousands of quotations and references--plus a huge bibliography.  Effort has been made herein to give credit to the ideas of others.  Any failures on my part hopefully have been accidental or unavoidable failures and not intentional ones. 

 

 

The Workplace 

 

Incidentally, the May 31, 2002, “The Week” (p. 36) had a short news item on “Workplace Employees lie, cheat, steal” which touched home on how pervasive the theme of stealing is in the modern, Western, Christian society. 

 

Per this report, the problem is vast.  Nearly 45% of employers are now tracking their employees on time spent on the telephone and on credit card purchases.  The GAO has found that US government workers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Internet porn sites (Internet sex and porn will be discussed more fully in a later chapter). 

 

 

Muslim Fundamentalists 

 

Later chapters will address the establishment and destruction of the Taliban Muslim fundamentalist movement in the nation of Afghanistan.  When GWB’s War on Terrorism exploded on the scene in the fall of 2001, there was quite a media focus on the Taliban and their reported evils. 

 

There were two primary aspects of this focus--first, women (which will be broached in one of the subsequent chapters addressing the role of women), and two, the culture.  The cultural aspects will be assessed now. 

 

The cultural issue was discussed in the Dec 3, 2001, “Time” magazine (p. 40) in an article by Richard Lacayo on “Lifting the Veil” (which was primarily concerned with the alleged evils placed upon women, to be described in the later chapters). 

 

Lacayo listed these cultural things forbidden (or outlawed) in the Taliban regime:  Pork, pig oil and lobster; Movies and photographs; VCRs, TVs and satellite dishes; Computers and the Internet; Kite flying and chess playing; Pool tables and firecrackers; Pet pigeons and swing catalogs; Clapping at sporting events; Singing and dancing; and ‘Anything that propagates sex and is full of music.’” 

 

While the Western, Christian civilization would like to ridicule and make fun of this list of prohibitions, the truth is that many of them have much Scriptural support.  From this aspect, is it possible that the Muslim fundamentalists are closer to the “Christian Bible” in teachings and conduct than are the Christians who carry their “Bibles” around (evidently for show purposes). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 240--Sun Worship Commercialism I

 

 

Fair, Just and Reasonable Profits 

 

In prior discussions on YHWH’s Torah, the point was made that the law prescribes the use of “just weights.”  Actually, the law prescribes that one should not defraud one’s rea (Lev 19:13) and should not be “unrighteous in judgment” in meteyard (and measurements), in weight or in measure, but that one should use just balances, weights, measurements, etc (Lev 19:35-36). 

 

Moreover, one of the great mitzwah in the Torah says that one should not wrong (oppress in the KJV, but involving the Hebrew concept of overreaching, as will be described in comments below) another (apparently another rea) in buying and selling (Lev 25:14). 

 

In context, this charge appears in connection with the Jubilee and the sale of land and its redemption before its reversion in the Jubilee year, although it probably has a broader meaning to encompass commercial transactions in general.  The student of truth must always remember that YAH’s laws establish broad principles of His thinking and wishes. 

 

 

Overreaching 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 12, p. 1391-1395) calls this act “overreaching” (Hebrew “ona’ah”) and reports the Talmud’s view of this text which suggests a broader meaning, but still with some exemptions and different degrees of overreaching or wronging a rea.  When ona’ah takes place, the required correction seems to be restitution (which otherwise could be up to four times the value of the wrong done). 

 

The point of this wonderful law is stated by Judaica as covering the sale of property for more than its real worth or the purchase of property for less than its real worth.  In other words, there is a moral duty on both the part of the seller and buyer to make the exchange in the context of real worth. 

 

In other words, always be just and fair in dealings with others with no defrauding, cheating or shortchanging of them, based upon greed and selfishness.  Probably, these laws also have some basis in the eighth commandment in the Decalogue prohibiting stealing (Ex 20:15) since cheating or defrauding someone else is tantamount to stealing. 

 

Actually, these wonderful mitzwot were repeated elsewhere and expanded on in various other Scriptures (Deut 25:13-15; Prov 16:11; Mic 6:11). 

 

Yeshayahu added that “He who acts with integrity, who speaks sincerely and rejects extortionate profit, who waves away bribes from his hands, shuts suggestions of murder out of his ears and closes his eyes against crime; this man will dwell in the heights, he will find refuge in a citadel built on rock...” (Isa 33:15-16, “Jerusalem Bible”). 

 

 

Two Measuring Systems? 

 

At a first glance, one might suppose that the issue in YAH’s Word is only over using unequal weights and measures to deceive and cheat another person.  Certainly, that aspect of commercialism is covered in YHWH’s law.  A good sample of this was brought out in director John Ford’s famous movie about “Fort Apache.” 

 

In that presentation, the stars, Henry Fonda and John Wayne, as ranking cavalry officers at Fort Apache, Arizona, went into the local Indian Agent’s store to check things out.  Fonda stood on the store’s scales and noted that he had just gained a significantly large number of pounds.  In other words, the scales were fixed so that they would show much higher weights than what really existed. 

 

Historically, many merchants have used two measuring weights for offsets on their scales.  One was heavier than it should have been and the other was lighter.  Merchants liked to use the heavier offset measuring weight for buying and use the lighter one for selling. 

 

This whole process brings to mind some comments about the evil and wicked merchants who abuse the poor by making the ephah small and the shekel great and falsifying the balances by deceit (Amos 8:4-6). 

 

The famous artist Norman Rockwell once painted a picture of a woman buying something from a merchant that was being weighed on a scale.  The woman was pushing the scale up from the bottom to lesson the weight, while the merchant had his thumb on top of the scale pushing it down to make the scale show a heavier weight.  

 

 

More Evil 

 

Though this study points out the sins of others in deceitful, fraudulent methods, it must be noted that this writer has also engaged in some shady, wretched, evil practices of ripping off others.  i am ashamed to have to say that my hands are not lily-white on this subject. 

 

Years ago, and supposedly after i was converted, i published a magazine and sold some ads.  In order to pep up one good advertiser, i engaged in a fraud to make him think he was getting a response to his ad when he was not.  i did this in a very deceitful and dishonest fashion in order to induce the customer to place another ad with me.  Yes, it was all because of greed and money.  i have now repented of this sin! 

 

Even Sony’s Columbia Pictures has recently gotten into the cheating game.  “The Week” (p. 8), for Jun 29, 2001, said that the company has admitted that it used fake fans in televised movie advertising.  The company’s own marketing executives starred in the ads, raving about the studio’s movie “The Patriot.” 

 

Clearly, it is so easy to become entrapped in some dishonest and evil scheme.  The human mind (perhaps with mental telepathic messages from demons) can actually cook up all kinds of things and rationalize that they are all right--when, in fact, they are extremely evil and wicked. 

 

The practices of cheating and deceiving have been around for many ages.  They will continue until YAH’s laws are firmly in place--because many people will cheat others, if given a chance (as pointed out above, this writer must confess this depravity, along with many other sins charged to my account over the years). 

 

 

Extortionate Profit 

 

And while the matter of using fraudulent and deceptive weights and measures is certainly covered in YHWH’s Torah, there is more to it than just that.  Please note that the Book says things about “extortionate profit” and “unrighteousness” and judgment or justice in weights, measures, etc., to apparently include commercial transactions in general. 

 

The modern, Christian, sun worship thinking is to buy low and sell high generally in commercial transactions.  In a trade, give as little as possible and get back as much as possible.  This prevailing Christian, sun worship position is to greedily get all you can in profit and gain in all cases.  Maintain a demanding attitude without giving any thought to fair play (as the Torah requires). 

 

Of course, it is this philosophy which completely dominates and fuels virtually all businesses and the entire stock and financial markets.  The idea of making money or getting gain for nothing and without labor is patently sun worship and Christian. 

 

Years ago, in a college class on auditing, the professor made a statement which taught me a lot about how Western, sun worship businesses operate.  He said that the pricing policies followed in commercial trade is to price and sell things “as much as the traffic will bear.” 

 

In other words, be ruthless and get all you can out of items being sold.  Let greed, get and acquire dominate commercial transactions, as briefly mentioned in a prior chapter on YHWH’s law. 

 

That previous presentation outlined some of the deceptive schemes used by businesses to get more and more out of their customers.  While there is no need to repeat all those previous remarks, there are some other issues involved on profits not covered.  For example, a question can arise over the just mentioned business pricing policies in the Western, Christian, sun worship culture. 

 

Of course, the background features affecting pricing are supply, demand and competition.  It is primarily competition which keeps prices from going out of the ceiling.  As big business gets bigger and as competition is diminished, prices do rise. 

 

In the Western Christian civilization, there is a tremendous motion to bigness in commercial businesses.  Giant corporations are taking over almost all commercial transactions.  Competition is so intense that many existing businesses are being crushed into oblivion.  This means less competition and more profits down the road.  The days of the small, local entrepreneur are fast becoming history. 

 

When this writer was a boy and even as a young man, all towns and cities had small, locally owned restaurants.  They are all almost gone, having now been replaced by the fast food chains.  Today, it is hard to find a mom and pop cafe in many areas. 

 

 

Gas and Oil Stations 

 

The same dilemma is true with the gasoline stations.  Once, they were all locally owned.  Today, most of the big gas companies own their own stations, and either run them or lease them out.  The big, corporate operations are tough competitors and they are able to destroy all competition over time.  Gasoline companies are notorious in their ability to destroy competition. 

 

Years ago, in Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana, there used to be a huge number of small gasoline stations which sold gasoline from some small, local refinery.  There were names that are now history--like Hunt Oil Company, to be shortly addressed.  But the big corporate giants were also around and had thousands of stations across America and were getting bigger over time.  

 

Here, one must refer to the major companies which came out of the breakup of the old Standard Oil Company, owned by John D. Rockefeller--which included Esso (later Exxon), Sohio, Std Oil of Ky, Chevron, Ashland Oil, Mobil, American and so forth. 

 

The major oil companies were so big and powerful that over time, they were able to destroy all of the small companies by manipulating the prices.  Let us say that twenty small, locally owned stations carried the Hunt brand in North Louisiana and that was all the distribution which Hunt had. 

 

In those areas where Hunt and other small refineries operated, there were, of course, the major oil companies.  The majors (and often in collusion, since the Rockefellers still controlled all of the different companies in the Standard Oil breakup) in those areas would start a horrible gas war and plunge gas prices to ridiculously low levels. 

 

Hunt and its distributors had to meet the major gas prices or sit by without selling any gas.  So Hunt and his 20 distributors slashed prices to be competitive.  Of course, over time, they all went broke because they could not continue to lose money every time they sold a gallon of gas.  Yet, these local gas wars had little or no impact upon the major oil companies. 

 

Why?  The reason is simple.  The major companies had thousands and thousands of distributors across America which were not involved in gas wars.  The majors were reaping and receiving their normal or excessive profits in all of these outlets.  They were only absorbing losses in a small market in North Louisiana which perhaps only involved 20 or so gas stations. 

 

It was no big deal for Mobil Oil Company and the other Rockefeller controlled oil companies to lose a little money in North Louisiana (in order to destroy and run Hunt out of business).  After all, Mobil and the other Rockefeller oil operations were raking in the profits elsewhere, all over America. 

 

Now, guess what happens once Hunt and the small operations are all destroyed and run out of business because they are unable to compete with the vastness and size of the major companies with outlets all over America.  Well, once the small dealers are gone and only the majors remain, the prices go up.  With collusion, which will be shortly assessed, there doesn’t even have to be competition among the majors. 

 

 

Food 

 

To further appreciate how this scam works in a Christian nation and among Christian people, it would be well to next look at the food distribution business.  Years ago, grocery stores and food markets were all local, small owners.  But those days are fast fading from the scene.  There are today several, large, corporate, food chains--like Safeway, Kroger, Albertson’s, Winn-Dixie and so forth. 

 

In areas where there are a lot of food stores and some real competition, these chains are very tough competitors.  They have smart, professional managers.  Most small operations are usually unable to effectively compete.  A customer can go into one of these chains in a large city (where there is competition) and find about the best prices around.  But guess what happens, if and when, this competition is removed? 

 

Sometimes, this writer goes to Newport, Washington to shop.  It has one Safeway store and a few gas stations selling some bread, milk and sundry items.  There is another small, locally owned market in nearby Oldtown, Idaho. 

 

Besides Safeway’s size and toughness as a competitor, there is a tax angle which helps Safeway in Newport.  Nearby Idaho has a 6% sales tax on food items while Washington state has no sales tax on food.  Therefore, Safeway has no effective competition and it has locked up grocery sales in the entire area.  Now comes the kicker.  The Safeway prices are some of the highest in the state. 

 

On average, they run about 10% more than what one finds for merchandise in the big stores in Spokane.  One may pause and wonder why food prices at one Safeway store are 10% higher than they are at another Safeway store 40 miles down the road, but the explanation is simple.  Safeway doesn’t care one whit about fairness in its pricing schemes.  She prices as much as the traffic will bare. 

 

In Spokane, Safeway has a lot of tough competition.  To survive, she must be competitive and tough as well.  But in Newport, she has very little competition.  She can charge 10% more.  If the one little store in Oldtown closes its door, Safeway can jack her prices even higher (and she would). 

 

 

Price Fixing 

 

Beyond the prospects of competition to keep prices down, there is another facet which is becoming increasingly present and relevant here in the early 21st century.  There is such a thing as price fixing and collusion and conspiracy in pricing operations (as noted earlier).  As long as two big chains are supposedly separate and independent, this collusion should theoretically not occur or not be a problem. 

 

But theory and the real world are sometimes in different ball parks.  Big chains can enter into price agreements and especially when the controlling stockholders are the exact same people in both instances.  Thus, the Rockefellers still control all of the breakout of the old Standard Oil Company.  They are not stupid.  They are not going to let their several companies really compete (though theoretically divided). 

 

There are several investment bankers and fat cat, Wall Street persons who own major blocks of stock in several of these corporate, retail giants (as elsewhere noted herein, it only takes about 3% ownership in a big corporation to control it).  The few people or even one person who controls several companies in a given business is going to take action to reduce or eliminate competition between the different factions. 

 

The “Forward” newspaper (p. 1) of Nov 30, 2001, had a story by Rachel Donadio on “Gavel to Gavel:  Classes Clash At Toney Auctioneers’ Trial” which focused upon efforts of an apparent gang of Amalekites to fix auctioneers’ commissions.  Rachel noted the “greed, power and social climbing” of the participants in a trial involving the fixing of sellers’ commissions by Christie’s and Sotheby’s auction houses. 

 

The point of mentioning this trial in New York on the two auctioneer houses is that price fixing schemes can develop in any sphere of activity-- to include auction houses. 

 

 

More Collusion 

 

Sometimes, cartels are established to boost prices and profits.  Cartels occur often in international commerce where trusts and combines are put into play to control the whole production, market and distribution system for certain products which are grown in a limited area.  Coffee, bananas, cocoa and so forth are very susceptible to cartels. 

 

Right now, the late 20th and early 21st centuries have been producing skyrocketing oil and coffee prices because of such collusion and conspiracy.  As bigness takes over, there will be more and more collusion among all of the fat cats controlling these products. 

 

There is still another problem for these foreign produced items.  As more and more foreigners wake up and realize that the US dollars are actually worthless, which they have been accepting for goods and services sold to Americans, US inflation will take off with a vengeance.  Commodity prices will go out of the sky. 

 

Exploding gasoline, oil and commodity prices are on the immediate horizon as inflation likely builds up starting sometime in Yechezkel’s 30th-33d years.  There is a tremendous motion underway whereby businesses are consolidating and growing larger and larger with more centralization of commercial power in fewer and fewer hands.  This means more profits and much higher prices. 

 

 

Fast Talking Shysters 

 

In the early days of America, there were few businesses or corporations of any size.  Most people were on the land as farmers.  But there were some craftsmen around who could make things.  The early developing years saw the surfacing of traveling peddlers (or drummers) who often went door to door or village to village, peddling their wares. 

 

A good example of such peddlers was illustrated in Broadway’s famous production of Rogers and Hammerstein’s “Oklahoma” (also produced as a hit Hollywood movie).  Many people will remember Oklahoma’s traveling Persian peddler man who was constantly trying to cheat and connive the supposedly dumb Oklahomans of the early 1900s out of their last coins. 

 

Most of these drummers (back then and today as well) were fast talking, clever, shrewd crooks and pathological liars (like Billy Graham and Slick Clinton).  Hence, most sales people are like sun worship preachers and politicians.  They have lied and do lie so much that they come to believe their own lies--all to make a buck or more often, a lot of bucks, usually on just one sale (this writer must confess this sin, as well). 

 

A Lebanese shyster once told me that years ago Middle Eastern peoples (both Arabs and Amalek-Edomites) would arrive penniless in New York--just off of immigration ships.  They would be outfitted in New York with a load of goods from a big NY merchant (clothes, trinkets, gadgets and so forth) and given a one way train ticket to some small town in America. 

 

On reaching their destinations, they would put their goods on their backs in knapsacks and start out hustling to sell them to the expected gullible, stupid, backwoods Americans.  The father of the famous Warner Brothers (Amalek-Edomites?) of Hollywood was one of those peddlers who sold his wares over the Eastern US. 

 

In NY, they might buy their load of goods at from a penny or two to perhaps a dollar for each item (on credit).  They would then sell the goods for “as much as they could get.”  Being fast talkers and liars, they usually would get many dollars (up to ten to twenty dollars) for single items that they had bought for fifty cents. 

 

As the years passed and as they began raking the money in, they would soon become more respectable with ownership of local clothing stores, jewelry stores, gift shops, etc.  Of course, they would also become some of the most wealthy people in town.  No wonder, because whatever they could get for an item--it was largely all profit. 

 

 

Some Christian Samples 

 

More recently, a used bookstore owner (a Mormon Christian) told this writer that he watched for garage sales where people were moving and were desperate to get rid of things which they couldn’t haul with them.  Being desperate, they would sell whatever they had at ridiculous give away prices.  The book dealer would pick up “big bargains” on boxes of books at something between 10 cents and a dollar or so per box. 

 

The Mormon book dealer under discussion (and similar ones as well) would then sell the books at one to five dollars each.  Effectively, whatever he would get for them would be all profit since he bought them for virtually nothing.  Is this an “extortionate profit” (or just an exorbitant profit?), as mentioned by Yeshayahu?  Is this a fair and just profit, as outlined in the Torah?  Is greed involved here? 

 

Many Christian retail stores have all kinds of gimmicks and tricks which they use to make some extra bucks.  Some gas stations adjust their pumps so that the sales price charge runs faster than the gas quantity being dispensed.  Thus, maybe the station can collect an extra dollar or so for every fill up.  Few people could ever begin to catch onto this popular gas station trick. 

 

Some retail stores sell older merchandise as newer merchandise or advertise it or offer it as something it is not to make extra profit.  Others, selling items by weight, adjust their scales to run higher than actual to allow a little scam.  The person buying something by weight will get less than what they should be based on money outlay.   The formerly discussed Fort Apache example illustrates this practice. 

 

A previous chapter on the Torah and business greed mentioned a neighbor of this writer who advertises himself as a “Christian.”  At least, he likes to talk about and preach about his righteousness to others whenever the opportunity presents itself.  The man involved has some rental buildings and runs a used goods store previously described. 

 

However, the word that best characterizes this man is “greed.”  He tries to get all he can get.  For his rental buildings, he has a reputation of maybe starting off pretty reasonable and then later slowly begins raising the rent and especially if he perceives that the business is doing good. 

 

From the standpoint of the renter, they are somewhat locked in from the perspective of starting to build up a business and not wanting to move and have to start all over.  Consequently, most renters, who are enjoying some success, will generally give in and tolerate the rent increases--certainly to a point. 

 

 

Fairness in the Law? 

 

In the Western, sun worship culture, most people have seen buyers involved in real estate, trade and commerce move around from place to place looking for some “great bargain.”  What this means is that they are looking for a sucker or a poor person who in desperation must sell something at a give-away price; and which they, as a buyer, can then make a “huge” profit on. 

 

These greedy shysters typically will never even pay what the seller wants for an item, but will proceed to try to get the desperate seller to go still lower (this is called Jewing him down in the Christian culture).  Thus, if the seller is asking two dollars for a box of goods, the shyster will cheat and deceive by offering one dollar or try to get something else thrown in the deal to sweeten the pot. 

 

The objective is never to pay what is reasonable, fair or just in the purchase.  The objective is to buy the product at the lowest possible price, irrespective of fairness and justice.  Most people trying to sell out to raise some money to move are in a poor bargaining position up against one of these “professional” con-artist buyers. 

 

It goes without having to say that in a forced sale, the seller can logically expect to lose money and take a beating.  It also goes without saying that if a buyer is buying something for resale, buying more of something than needed, or otherwise buying something not urgently needed; then the market value of the item involved goes down appreciably. 

 

 

Fair to Both Parties 

 

But in such an atmosphere, the requirements of fair play and reasonableness dictated in the Scriptures means that there still should be a meeting place on price between the buyer and the seller so that both benefit and get a fair shake on the transaction. 

 

Neither party in a transaction should have to feel like he was cheated.  Both the buyer and seller certainly should want a fair exchange where both receive a fair deal and greed and selfishness do not dominate the transaction. 

 

For perhaps all consumer goods, there is a basic manufacturing cost (made up of labor, materials and factory overhead).  To this, there are legitimate transportation costs; and of course, necessary wholesale and retail expenses.  It goes without saying that at all levels, everyone involved is usually entitled to a “fair, just and reasonable” profit. 

 

But in the historic sun worship culture, there never was any attempt to define what fair, just and reasonable was or should be beyond the demands of competition.  Consequently, people of the old sun worship cults were always free to exercise greed and selfishness and get all that they could in a deal.  And they did. 

 

Christianity picked up on this old sun worship capitalism and selfish Christian merchants generally do the same thing today.  To get as much as the traffic will bear (unless limited by competition) frequently means getting some outrageous return of huge, exorbitant profits.  It’s a case where either the buyer or seller figures that he/she stuck it to the other person and came out with a definite advantage. 

 

 

Unloading 

 

The stock brokerage firm of Merrill Lynch had a commercial on a Spokane radio station on March 21, 2002, which really hit a home run in terms of the mentality of the typical person.  The essence of the advertisement was that investors need to turn to Merrill Lynch to unload their losers (to innocent buyers) and replace them with winners. 

 

In hearing this ad, the thought came to this writer that this concept underlies almost all of the desires and ambitions of virtually everyone (to certainly include Christians in general).  The idea is always to get rid of a loser and pass it to a sucker and replace the loser with a winner that can be obtained at a bargain from another sucker. 

 

One sees this mentality often in the case of buying and selling used cars (probably in the old days, the focus was on horses and buggies).   Almost all people with a so-called lemon or dog car quickly begin plotting on how they can get rid of their problem by selling it or transferring it to some sucker who can be entrapped into acquiring the car at the highest price or trade possible. 

 

Manifestly, people in the market to buy or sell a car (and this is especially true with used car sellers) are usually never anxious to disclose the problems with the cars that they are trying to sell or trade (it is no wonder that used car salesmen have such bad reputations).  In other words, caveat emptor prevails--let the buyer beware, implying that the sale is made at the buyer’s risk.  Of course, this is not YHWH’s way. 

 

In recent years, this writer had a car with a slow, electrical draw on the battery.  It seemed impossible to locate the draw without spending a lot of money on an old car with very little value.  The thought came to me several times to get rid of it on a sale or trade (without disclosing the draw problem).

 

It was a struggle, but these thoughts were cast aside as being unfair to transfer this problem to an innocent buyer (without fully disclosing it).  In most of my life, i would never have expressed any concern at all over passing a lemon on to a sucker who would buy it.  So, in my old age, this was a fluke for me. 

 

 

The Medical Profession 

 

Another recent case of greed happened to this writer on a visit to a doctor in July 1998 for a diagnosis and consultation (no treatment because i am fundamentally opposed to the present medical and health care systems, as will be covered in later chapters).  Before the visit under discussion, the question was asked about the charge.  The clerk said $50 to $80 with $50 in advance. 

 

The payment was made and the visit was accomplished in about 12 to 13 minutes.  A few days later, a bill arrived for $100 more (to total 150 dollars).  This was outrageous because it represented incredible greed.  This whole sickness in the present Christian culture of allowing the medical system to extort more and more money from its victims will be assessed in later chapters. 

 

For now, it must be noted that the present medical arrangement involves a largely captive audience, much like the insurance companies.  Consequently, the doctors and medical care people can keep hiking their charges up, up and away into the ceiling and no one seems able to challenge them. 

 

The whole medical establishment and its pricing policies are a disgrace for several reasons which will be assessed in future chapters, as just noted.  But presently, the point must be made that greed predominates in this whole industry, as it seems to control all other industries and businesses. 

 

A person planning a visit to a doctor or the medical care industry needs to tie down expected charges in advance.  One should take the extra step to inquire about charges, get names and be sure that an agreement is in place before any visits or work is authorized.  Otherwise, the innocent victim will be quite surprised when the bill(s) comes in. 

 

 

More Schemes 

 

In order to increase business profits (which was addressed in former discussions on extortionate profits), many businesses develop and scheme different methods of fooling the dumb public. 

 

For example, historically, garages and service stations used to offer an oil change, filter and a lubrication (which included a check of water, battery, etc) for a set charge.  In order to get more and more from the gullible public, many of the modern businesses offering this service do it in a deceptive manner to get more and more from customers. 

 

Often, a station will advertise an oil change, filter and lubrication for a fixed fee (usually around 20 dollars).  Once a sucker is hooked on this come on, he will discover a whole series of additional charges which runs the typical bill up above $30. 

 

For example, the station will offer a grade and brand of oil which most cars can’t use.  To get a proper brand or grade of oil, there is typically an additional charge of $5 or more.  The lube no longer includes the so-called “topping off” checks of water, battery, etc.  This has to be added for another $5 or so. 

 

Moreover, stations now add an additional charge for “disposing” of the old oil removed.  This can be another $3 to $5 which all customers generally must pay.  All of these charges (per 2000 rates which will go up in coming years) quickly add up to something the innocent victim never anticipated.  Again, a person needs to be sure of a price agreement--in advance. 

 

 

More Greed 

 

Is it fair and honest to deceive and mislead people in order to make a sale?  Yes, it’s all right for Christians to do anything needed in terms of lying, cheating and deceiving in order to make all the bucks they can make however and whatever they may have to do in order to get them.  This is very common in the Christian, capitalist, sun worship culture.  This writer must confess this sin as well (in the past tense). 

 

There is absolutely no limit to the greed, get and acquire in the hearts of carnal people--to include fleshly Christians.  Christians have been in charge of the Western, Christian civilization for the last 1,700 years.  They have had ample opportunities to do something about the inordinate amount of greed (at least, in the commercial arena).  But they have closed their eyes and looked the other way. 

 

Greedy Christian people (like their old sun worship ancestors) could care less about words and concepts of fairness, reasonableness, justice and rightness in dealing with others (even other Christians).  If a sucker is willing to pay substantially more for a product, beyond just cost and a reasonable profit, then all power to the seller. 

 

No, anyway one might try to hack it, the Scriptures do teach and advocate some fair play and justice in commercial dealings among people.  In good conscience, a true believer would be hard pressed to justify exorbitant and excessive profits just because the buyer is stupid and can be talked into it.  In terms of the Scriptural brotherhood, there is no room for such wickedness. 

 

The whole topic of human greed was broached in a prior chapter on YHWH’s laws in the context that greed represents the very antithesis of YAH’s wonderful laws dealing with charity and fair play to others.  Human greed, get and acquire are a part and parcel of the historic, Christian, sun worship culture and civilization. 

 

Consequently, many practicing and professing Christians are extremely greedy and their Christian sun worship churches have no problem with it at all, although they function in a totally contrary profile to what the Scriptures actually prescribe.  The ELOHIM’s marvelous Torah establishes broad principles which prohibit human greed, as discussed in previous chapters. 

 

 

Greed is Unlimited 

 

As noted above in this chapter, this writer has had a neighbour who advertises himself as a “Christian” and runs a used goods store that sells a few antiques, old appliances, furniture, gifts, odds, ends and so forth.  In terms of his own little used goods store, he is extremely crafty.  It sits on a major highway that has a lot of travel and especially tourists in the summer months. 

 

In an effort to draw customers into his store, he has a number of large signs which read “Estate Sale.”  He places these along the highway to fool people into thinking that an estate sale is in progress. 

 

People are often classic suckers when it comes to being roped into a so-called sale in progress.  Many will stop for an “estate sale” when they otherwise would drive by without even a second look. 

 

In order for human greed to excel and satisfy the motivations, whims and desires of most persons in the Western, Christian, sun worship civilization, smart people are always conniving, plotting and scheming on how they can deceive and mislead people in a way that they can take money and profits from them.  There is no end to it. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 241--Sun Worship Commercialism II

 

 

Judaism, Revisited   

 

A reader’s letter from Burlington, Vermont in the Mar 30, 2001, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 8) commented upon the January 2001 Slick Clinton pardon of the likely Amalekite Marc Rich (discussed in an earlier chapter) and related that event (of the bribes Rich paid to Slick) to a recent reading from the Torah. 

 

The letter reported the council of Rav Twerski--who said that the Torah teaches that contributions to the building of the (YHWH’s) sanctuary (and by extension, any worthy endeavor) can only be made with funds acquired honestly.  The Rav then added that the Talmud say that it is unacceptable to use stolen items (or money) in the performance of a mitzwah. 

 

The conclusion here was that regardless of the righteousness of a cause, tainted money should never be accepted.  When Christian Churches pass their collection plates or make their common appeals for money, does it matter to any of the Christians where the money comes from as contributed by the audience? 

 

If Slick Clinton should take some of the money he received in bribes and contribute it to his local Methodist or Baptist preacher in Washington, New York or wherever, is it conceivable that his Christian preacher would reject the money?  Of course not.  Christians essentially never focus upon the righteousness of the Torah and would almost never question the tainted money. 

 

 

The Banks 

 

Preceding comments and later chapters have discussed or will discuss at length the Amalek-Edomite bankers who were in power in the Temple in the Jerusalem area during the days of YESHUA The MESSIAH.  They introduced the banking business to the world, which has steadily grown in power and influence in the last 2,000 years. 

 

Future chapters herein will also cover the US Federal Reserve banking system and the similar central banks in Europe and elsewhere which are all privately owned banks.  Most of these central banks and international banks, as well, are in the hands of very depraved Amalekites. 

 

So it is no wonder that there is so much greed and exploitation in this system.  Future chapters will address in some detail the global banking system run by the Amalekites.  For now, this whole evil system will be by-passed.  But the reader should keep it in mind when addressing banks and greed. 

 

These Amalekites are experts in commercial greed, get and acquire.  The collective public in the generic sense simply is too naive, ignorant and lacking to ever be able to beat them in a commercial transaction. 

 

Tragically, most of the people in the world are still in bed in the mornings while the Amalekite shysters are already up and plotting on how to steal money from everyone else.  For sure, the majority of people never get up early enough in the mornings to beat or even get a fair shake from one of these Amalekites in a trade or financial transaction.  They are masters! 

 

Therefore, the most notorious illustrations of greedy, evil activities in the commercial arena has to be the contemporary financial and banking systems (which are mostly in the hands of Amalekites).  Nothing seems to approach the banking world for greed, get and acquire. 

 

 

Interest and Loans 

 

The relevant issues involved in engaging in banking, the making of loans, and/or the taking of interest on loans is mentioned from time to time throughout this publication (both in former and later chapters).  There is no intent to necessarily duplicate those presentations here in this section.  But it is perhaps good here to recap what the Word says on these themes. 

 

As a start place, it would be well to note that “Webster’s Dictionary” says that interest is “money paid for the use of money.”  For usury, Webster’s says it is the “lending of money at an excessive rate.”  This point needs mention because the KJV and some other English translations have a tendency to use the word usury for interest in general and especially in the role of condemnation. 

 

The loaning of money at interest is unique from other loans in that the loaning of property usually dictates a repayment of the same property.  Title to loaned property remains with the lender.  In the case of money, the money becomes the property of the borrower.  The idea of getting a gain from the loaning of property (beyond wear and tear reimbursement) seems to be suspect in the Book. 

 

Another feature of the Hebrew culture is that it was agriculturally oriented and not commercially focused.  As the “New Bible Dictionary” notes, in an article on “Debt, Debtors,” “Loans to Israel were not commercial but charitable, granted not to enable a trader to set up or expand a business but to tide a peasant farmer over a period of poverty.”  This reality affects the Scriptural positions on loans and interest. 

 

 

The Racial Distinctions, Revisited 

 

Essentially, there are three or so categories of people described in the Scriptures.  As outlined in former chapters on race, there are the bloodline, rea Israelites, the ger aliens (actually, the ger toshab types, who are in the land of Yisrael and are racially of the same stock as Yisrael) and the nokri/nekar aliens (who are the racially different strangers present in Yisrael). 

 

There are no restrictions on making loans to or collecting interest from the nokri/nekar peoples (Deut 23:20).  The question over loans and interest surfaces in relation to the rea Israelites and ger relatives.  In terms of the rea and ger (in the toshab class in Yisrael), no interest was allowed under penalty of death (Ex 22:25; Neh 5:6-13; Ezek 18:10-18; 22:12). 

 

In terms of the rea and the ger (of the toshab class in Yisrael), there was a mandatory provision to loan to the poor of those classes without any payment of interest or increase (Lev 25:35-38; Deut 15:7-8; 23:19-20; Ps 15:5; Prov 28:8; 29:1-13).  There is some similar advice for brethren in YESHUA’s fellowship (Matt 5:42; Lu 6:34-35). 

 

Regarding the question of loans in general to the collective Israelite population (which would have to be without interest), there is no requirement to loan them money.  In fact, loaning or borrowing money is an undesirable practice in the absence of a legitimate need and poverty (Isa 24:1-2; Jer 15:10). 

 

And by all means, for those loans made, Samson Raphael Hirsch lays out the following for Exodus 22:25:  “If the Torah raises interest-free loans to the highest duty of social brotherhood, and protects the borrower against harsh treatment or even embarrassment, on the other hand, Jewish Law makes the punctual and regular repayment of debts an absolute duty for the debtor, forbids any careless or speculative use of borrowed money, and advises everybody rather to refuse to lend anything to a frivolous borrower than to place himself in the position of becoming a pressing creditor” (“The Pentateuch,” Ex 22:24). 

 

For those loans to fellow Israelites, where the poor borrower is totally unable to repay the loan, there is an interesting hope of resolution in that at the end of the seventh year, there was a release of the loan (Deut 15:1-8).  In other words, it was to be forgiven.  In Deuteronomy 15:3, this year of release specifically does not apply to the nokri/nekar stranger. 

 

Tough the ger (the ger toshab in the land) is not addressed in this text, the intent would seem to be that the year of release applies to him equally as well as the Israelite since he is to be treated the same as the Israelites (Lev 19:33-34).  

 

 

Other Related Concepts 

 

Now, what about YESHUA’s Words about lending money out at interest (Matt 25:27; Lu 19:23).  Does His comments abolish the clear mizwot in the Torah.  No, of course not.  He did not and indeed could not abolish or change the findings in the Torah (Matt 5:18-20).  In those NT remarks, YESHUA was setting forth a parable--which should not necessarily be taken literally. 

 

Instead, His remarks in context were setting forth some good teachings on the need to be productive and not slothful or lazy (Matt 25:24-27; Lu 19:20-23). 

 

In a “Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraic” on Matthew 25:27, John Lightfoot said:  “The Lord did not deliver the talents to his servants with that intent, that they should receive the increase and profit of them by usury; but that, by merchandise and some honest way of trade, they should increase them.  He only returns this answer to the slothful servant, so fitted to what he had alleged; ‘You take me for a covetous, griping, and sordid man:  why then did you not make use of a manner of gain agreeable to these qualities, namely interest or usury (since you would not apply yourself to any honest traffic), that you might have returned me some increase of my money, rather than nothing at all?’  So that our Lord, in those words, doth not so much approve of usury, as upbraid the folly and sloth of his servants.” 

 

Thus, per Lightfoot, YESHUA’s parable was really a wise message of how wrong and slothful those people were. 

 

Finally, YESHUA’s perception on the bankers will be discussed in some detail in subsequent chapters that assess His murder.  Suffice to say, He called the money lenders/bankers “thieves” (Matt 21:13). 

 

 

The Muslims 

 

In an article on “Al-Qaeda’s Revenge:  Its Methods and Nation-State Allies” (p. 1), as published by the Citizens Public Policy Review, writers David Bossie and Christopher Gray make the point that the Koran prohibits the charging of interest on loans--accordingly, the supposed terrorist Osama bin Laden (a sincere Islamic fundamentalist) refuses to deposit his money in banks (except Islamic banks which do not charge interest). 

 

If Bossie and Gray are right, it raises questions about whether a person should deposit money in banks which do loan money out at interest to their rea and ger colleagues.  Apparently, in the case of Bin Laden, he allegedly is a man of principle who is more concerned with obeying the Koran than in making money at interest. 

 

 

Some Good Commercial Examples 

 

In America, finance companies and credit card agencies are doing their level best to entrap people into their clutches (to get all the interest and gain that they possibly can).  Once hooked, they bleed their victims dry with blatant usury and uncalled for charges.  Quickly, a small balance of a few hundred dollars can change into thousands of dollars, if not promptly paid. 

 

As the days proceed, the charges grow so big and fast that finance charges soon exceed the original amount and then go on to double or triple the start figure.  No wonder the wicked Amalekites would be right at home in a business such as this. 

 

Many of these financial institutions charge an annual membership fee of $50 or so, plus interest at 18 to 30% per annum, and if a victim is late in making a payment they will customarily add a late fee of $5 to $25.  A small loan or credit balance can quickly accelerate up. 

 

The situation with many finance, loan, bank and credit card companies is like making a loan with the Mafia or a pawn shop.  The interest and charges go out of the sky.  The moral of this story is that people need to flee from these evil institutions and not get entrapped in them in the first place. 

 

Insurance companies are equally as bad.  They prevail on the present system to make automobile insurance mandatory by state law and house or property insurance similarly compulsory in all cases where there is an outstanding loan or mortgage. 

 

With a captive audience, these insurance companies continue to raise the rates--outrageously high.  Most insurance premiums go to fuel profits, company overhead and agent’s commissions (which are excessive).  It is only a very small portion that ends up in claims’ payments.  Some of this even involves Amalekites who fraudulently misrepresent claims to rip the insurance companies off, as outlined earlier. 

 

Both the insurance and finance or banking companies constitute enormous rip offs and the public seems unable to break free of this incredible wickedness and evil in the contemporary Christian civilization.  Again, the Word calls bankers “thieves,” as noted above. 

 

 

Pledges and Sureties 

 

In the old days, it was very common for a lender to require a pledge or surety in the form of collateral or a guarantee that a loan will be repaid.  This practice is still fairly common today with loans associated with land and cars, but less common otherwise.  Sometimes, property is simply mortgaged to provide the collateral.  Otherwise, co-signers or guarantors are sometimes required for a loan. 

 

A pledge arises when a person becomes indebted to another and is required to render an object of personal property (like a ring, a garment or something else of tangible value) as a pledge to guarantee the loan or indebtedness (Prov 17:18; 22:26).  Sureties seem to have included any form of a guarantee for a loan. 

 

As was true with the making of loans and requiring interest, the whole matter of pledges and sureties devolve to the matter of race (like almost everything else in the Tanakh). 

 

Generally, there were three classes of people--the rea Israelites, the ger aliens and the nokri/nekar strangers.  By law, the gerim (in the toshab class, dwelling in the land of Yisrael) were always in the same category as the rea Israelites.  They were essentially the same people and were to be treated the same way. 

 

However, the nokri/nekar peoples (the behemah, chaiyah and mamzer, mixed blooded peoples) were of different racial stock and YHWH’s law simply did not apply to them.  In the case of dealing with the nokri/nekar strangers, the Word seems to suggest that Israelites should not deal with them.  They are unstable and questionable people to be tied to in commercial or private transactions. 

 

So, if an Israelite was foolish enough to loan to the nokri/nekar, then by all means he should require a pledge or surety (Prov 20:16; 27:13).  That’s pure and simple wisdom.  In terms of a zur foreigner, it was not wise to be involved as a surety for them at all (Prov 11:15).

 

The fundamental Scriptural approach to the question of becoming a pledge and/or offering surety for another is fairly simple.  It is not wise to become a surety for another (Prov 6:1-2; 17:18; 22:26-27).  

 

 

An Issue of Wisdom and Not a Mitzwah 

 

Although YHWH’s laws on lending without interest and on extending aid to needy rea brethren (cited earlier and to be discussed in later comments) make the practice of pledges and sureties assuredly wrong, and particularly in the case of the poor and needy (Neh 5:1-5; Job 22:5-6; 24:3, 9; Ezek 18:7, 12-16; 33:15; Amos 2:6-8), the practice is not expressly prohibited (as noted above). 

 

Perhaps in difference to the situation of the poor (where they inevitably have to borrow and give a pledge or surety), YHWH does not seem to prohibit the giving of a pledge or surety, per se.  The prohibition seems to be in the taking of a pledge.

 

Maybe, in His wisdom, The ELOHIM elected to not spell this wrong out as a mitzwah because the poor sometimes can only obtain help for food and shelter from greedy, evil people by making a pledge or offering security.  Thus, sureties and pledges are not wrong, per se (Gen 15:13; 38:17-20; 42:37-38; 43:8-9; 44:32-33; Job 17:3; Ps 119:121-122; Heb 7:22). 

 

This issue of taking a pledge arises in those transactions where something of necessity is taken--like raiment (Ex 22:26; Deut 24:6, 10-13).  It is simply taboo for an Israelite to take a pledge of a necessity from a fellow Israelite or ger alien. 

 

While the Torah addresses raiment, the implication is anything of necessity--to include food, housing, a millstone (needed for grinding wheat) and the tools and means needed for a man to make a living.  And if an Israelite should take some of these necessities from another Israelite or ger, the Torah demanded that they be returned before the sun sets that day. 

 

Again, as briefly noted above, the giving of a pledge seems to fit into a different category than the taking of a pledge.  Sometimes, poor people have to give pledges simply to live and exist.  But Israelites should never take a pledge from the rea poor and possibly not even from other Israelites or gerim in general.  It seems to be bad or at least a questionable business. 

 

 

A Final Word from the Torah 

 

A former chapter quoted and commented to some extent upon Leviticus 25:35-36 in the vein that if thy brother (rea, or fellow Israelite) be waxen poor, then we are to uphold him and not take increase from him.  As was pointed out in those comments, the believer is commanded to help and support needy brethren according to their needs and to take no profit or gain from them in any circumstance. 

 

Furthermore, as discussed above in this chapter, on making loans and taking pledges and sureties, the Israelite is commanded in the Torah to loan to his fellow rea Israelites and gerim in Yisrael in need without interest and without requiring a pledge or security.  The Israelite is commanded to help his needy brethren.  Surely, these mitzwot apply 100% to all Israelites in business as well as the Israelite public at large. 

 

Now, these are beautiful concepts of charity which seem totally foreign in the eyes of most Christians.  Yet, these laws are in the Torah and are in the form of mitzwot which establish sin and righteousness.  Therefore, the subject is important and is something which must not be slurred or slovenly passed over lightly. 

 

What this means is that a businessman cannot be righteous by taking any gain or profit from his poor, needy, rea brethren.  Of course, this commandment can be far reaching in terms of the modern Christian world of capitalism, commercialism, greed, get and acquire. 

 

It means that if a believing man operates a store or other retail business and a needy racial kinsman enters, the business man is obligated to take no profit or gain from him in a commercial transaction.  Actually, the same reasoning applies in all cases of all transactions and interplay between rea brethren in all facets of life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 242--Sun Worship Commercialism III

 

 

Gunsmoke 

 

CBS launched its well known “Gunsmoke” television series in the 1950s.  It has been reported to be the longest running television program of all in history.  In the context of reruns, it still has a presence here in the early 21st century. 

 

One of the Gunsmoke programs in 1956 was entitled “The Pest Hole.”  This one was especially pertinent to the subject of commercial greed and get.  The story opened with Kitty treating some very sick people in the back of Matt Dillon’s jail in Dodge City, Kansas, presumably in the 1870s.  One man died in her presence. 

 

Marshall Dillon and his able assistant Chester were out front with Doc trying to pacify and contain several of the local Dodge City merchants who were in quite a quandary over the problem.  As Doc explained it, it appeared to be a typhoid fever outbreak, which was likely caused by some local bug in the Dodge area.  Doc’s task was to try to locate the source and stomp it out. 

 

But the Dodge City merchants (which included the owner of the local Dodge House, various gambling and liquor saloons, etc) were impatient and terribly upset.  These men were pacing the floor and wringing their hands (figuratively speaking). 

 

As these local fat cat merchants explained it, the cattle drives would be soon coming into Dodge and the cattlemen and cowboys would have a lot of money to spend which the merchants wanted.  They were in no mood to stand by and allow this money to miss them. 

 

It would be an unparalleled crisis if the disease scared these cattlemen away from trading, drinking and playing in Dodge.  Something had to be done right now because their profits were on the line.  And this is a serious problem, if something stands in the way of greed, get and profits. 

 

Doc indicated that the first several men who had come down with the disease had all ate together one day at a local restaurant and this could be the source of the epidemic or there could be still some other explanation.  The doctor said he would need some time to check into it. 

 

But the merchants were in no mood to wait.  So one of the leaders took the bull by the horns (so to speak) and took some of his boys with him over to the accused restaurant to damage it and put it out of business.  They ended up by killing the cafe owner.  In the meantime, people kept coming down with the disease and dying.  It became obvious that the bug didn’t come from the accused restaurant. 

 

 

The Cause 

 

In a further review of possible causes, the fact was that the sick people were all Germans or of German extraction.  They had all attended a local German pork fest just before coming down sick.  The pork fest seemed to be the common denominator and particularly when it was later tied down to the man who did the cooking at the event. 

 

As the story went, the cook was the carrier (as is possible with typhoid) and he passed the bug along to the people who ate his pork.  From this background, two significant points emerge.  First, supposedly Christian people like that should have had brains enough to not eat pork.  It is condemned in YHWH’s Word. 

 

Next, the local businessmen (who were all likely Christians) should have been more concerned with the epidemic and the poor families whose lives were being shattered by sickness and death.  Instead, their whole focus and attention was directed to the profits and money they stood to lose if something was not done. 

 

Their greed was so intense that one of them let his greed overcome logic and truth so much so that he and his boys murdered an innocent man.  And this pretty well tells the tale of people in business in America.  And this includes Christian merchants as well as atheists and agnostics.  Greed does not seem to take a back seat among Christians, or people of any other worldly religions. 

 

 

The Christmas Illustration, Revisited 

 

If there was one thing in the Western, Christian civilization which has come to typify and demonstrate Christian greed, it is the annual Christmas ceremony.  There are many bad features about Christmas which were assessed in some detail in other chapters before times.  Hence, there is no need to try to cover them again now. 

 

But there is something profoundly important about Christmas in the present discussion on Christian, sun worship commercialism which needs further comment.  For certain, the one most impressive thing about the Christian Christmas exercise (here in the late 20th and early 21st centuries) is the incredible greed and commercialism associated with it. 

 

What has happened in the Christian West since WWII on Christmas is really unprecedented in Western history.  While it is true that there was some recognition of Christmas and religious meetings (particularly Christmas masses in the Roman Catholic Church definition), there was never the fanaticism and apparent insanity which have developed over the last several years. 

 

Perhaps, it has been the affluence and prosperity which some have enjoyed (especially in the US and White British Commonwealth nations).  But early on, with the affluence, people in business realized that they had an opportunity in Christmas to really clean up and satisfy the epitome of their ambitions in terms of profits, greed, get and acquire. 

 

So shrewd merchandisers (often Amalekite crooks) capitalized upon the heathen Christmas (and the other sun worship holidays, as described earlier) to motivate, impress, teach, advocate, induce and persuade gullible Christians to spend their money in mad, insane splurges to buy gifts for each other (yes, the gifts are a trade off or swapping scheme and not predicated upon true love, as discussed previously). 

 

 

Yes, Insanity 

 

Christmas has come to be one of the most hateful and evil times of the year where greed and wickedness prevail in parties, spending money, gifts, Christmas cards, sex, drunkenness, crime, murders, violence and on and on.  It is a totally reckless and evil time which true believers generally cannot endure satisfactorily. 

 

Not content with ripping off the gullible, stupid Christians, the smart, commercial, con artists (mainly Amalekites) also decided that they would incorporate Judaism into the same insanity by teaching, educating, advocating and inducing Jews to give Hanukkah gifts.  So even Jews have joined in on the insanity (as discussed earlier). 

 

If there was ever a time in the year which demonstrates the epitome of greed, get and acquire in the commercial environment, it is Christmas time when madness takes over and rules, as people go crazy to spend much or all of their available money and even to go into debt in order to satisfy the spending urge (created, maintained and programmed by commercial business enterprises with deceptive and motivating advertising designed to make people spend and spend). 

 

Incidentally, a poll taken of sun worshipping Americans in late November 1999 found that some 91% of them felt that the commercialized Christmas had gotten out of hand (Dec 6-12, 1999, “Washington Times,” p. 13, in an article by Jennifer Harper on “Americans taking aim at Christmas hysteria”).  Some 58% said that they had taken action in the last three years to downsize and simplify the holiday hoopla. 

 

 

Christian Organizations Get In On Commercialism 

 

A former chapter focused upon some of the depraved Christians who have stolen and ripped off millions of dollars in church funds for their own purposes.  TV star Jim Bakker and Black leader, the “reverend” Henry Lyons, were both notorious in recent years for stealing and embezzling hundreds of millions of dollars in church funds. 

 

“The reverend” Jesse Jackson is head of a non-profit operation called “PUSH.”  He seems to operate it with his political organization called the “Rainbow Coalition.” 

 

Much of the money coming to Jesse’s operations come from Black shakedowns and extortion efforts levied against White businesses.  When Jesse starts in after White businesses, they must fork over some huge donations to his non-profit work or he will declare war upon them and force them out of business. 

 

In January 2001, news surfaced that “the reverend Jackson” had fathered an illegitimate child.  He put the mother on the payroll--even though she was not a legal employee of his non profit organization. 

 

Other complaints surfaced which alleged that “the reverend” was stealing and embezzling funds otherwise.  But nothing will come of these allegations because “the reverend” is a popular leader in the African community.  

 

The contemporary White society has become so goofy over Blacks and other Coloreds that the Colored special interest groups are able to rip off millions of dollars from the credulous Whites.  A good example of how this insanity works arose in the last couple of years when some Blacks went into Denny’s Restaurant and were not promptly waited upon.  They sued Denny’s and collected $53 million for alleged discrimination. 

 

Jesse Jackson’s PUSH and other Black church operations blackmail and threaten the gullible Whites and the Whites make vast pay-offs and bribes to be left alone.  There are other “reverends” (like Al Sharpton) in the same rip off racket.  It seems that most Negro men are either working for the government or in the Christian business as Black preachers (like Jackson, Sharpton, Lyons and huge numbers of others). 

 

 

Christian Churches Too 

 

But there is another issue on this theme which is rarely discussed.  Many Christian Churches have become quite active in the capitalist world to also steal and rip off funds from as many people as possible.  For example, the Catholic and Mormon Churches have long used the tithes and offerings from their dumb sheep members to buy whole commercial businesses.  Some churches own and control vast enterprises. 

 

These Christian Churches and the Christian people actually managing these efforts follow the same practices and procedures as found in the commercial world at large in the supposedly secular society of the Western, Christian civilization.  In other words, these church owned businesses are just as apt to deceive, rip off and steal from the public as any other business.  There is no distinction in conning money from suckers. 

 

With the crazy insanity over the stock market (and the prospects of making a lot of money without working for it), many churches have set up investment clubs and foundations to induce their membership to plow savings into them so that ostensibly the church can invest these funds and bring back a higher return on investment to the investors. 

 

On the surface, this may sound well and good.  But is it?  Former remarks herein must surely raise questions about the whole commercial and business world.  Also, a future chapter will assess the sin aspects of environmental pollution and how pervasive it is in today’s modern world. 

 

But there is still one more fall out on these so-called church investment groups.  Often, some of the people running these operations are themselves either crooks or incompetents.  In either case, the people investing and putting the money into these nefarious schemes wake up one day and find that their fellow, Christian brethren have either stolen the money or foolishly lost it in a stock market, gambling operation. 

 

 

More 

 

A few years ago, a bad scandal erupted in the Seventh day Adventist Church when one of their investment groups collapsed, because of internal corruption and/or incompetence.  Now, in October 1999, news reports have raised questions about one or more Baptist investment groups which all of a sudden are in financial jeopardy. 

 

The Baptist Foundation of Arizona (BFA) has been mentioned where some 13,000 investors seem to have lost something like $590 million--which far exceeds the $158 million stolen or lost by the big time TV preacher Jim Bakker (Dec 6, 1999, “Newsweek,” p. 74).  The BFA was headed by a charismatic, Christian man named William Crotts who denies any wrong doing (of course). 

 

After several years of distorting financial reports and telling lies to the investors (to keep getting more and more money from them to keep the BFA ship afloat), things came apart at the seams in November 1999 when BFA was forced into bankruptcy by state regulators.  Crotts may be prosecuted by the state of Arizona for fraud and investors may get 20 cents on the dollar or less from the failed BFA. 

 

The place one must come to is that not only do Christian people steal and rip off all they can from their Christian brothers; but even the churches get in on the act by owning and operating businesses outright or creating investment clubs to invest in commercial enterprises.  In either case, the dumb Christian suckers end up loosing money or being cheated in some manner. 

 

 

Another Christian Scam 

 

The above reference to the sin question, in the context of certain businesses and the way they are managed, brings up another fascinating point on Christian thinking.  Some years ago, this writer knew of a Seventh day Adventist (SDA) man in Central Oregon who owned a large shopping center. 

 

While the SDA people don’t obey much from the Torah, they do usually take the question of unclean meats and the Seventh day Sabbath seriously.  In this context, it is unusual that a SDA person would own a grocery store that was open on the Seventh day or would sell pork and other unclean products. 

 

To get around these potential problems, the shopping center owner merely leased out his facility to others--which included a grocery store (stocking pork, catfish, cigarettes, whiskey, etc), a video store (which carried a whole array of films promoting pornography, the occult, New Age ideology, etc) and a number of other businesses which involved very questionable activities from the sin perspective. 

 

Most all of the businesses in the shopping center were open on the Seventh day Sabbath. 

 

Naturally, a “successful” person with this much property was always an important tithe payer to the SDA Church.  Of course, the SDA leadership constantly looked the other way on the source of these funds coming into church coffers--never mind that they came from the sale of pork on Sabbaths or from the rental of porno films. 

 

While this focus is upon a man owning a shopping canter, the same reasoning must be applied to any person owning or investing in any business. 

 

How can a Sabbath keeper invest or put money into a business that is open on Sabbaths?  How can a believer put money into Disney and other film producers which manufacture and distribute sick, vulgar and evil movies. 

 

How can a believer own or invest money in a business which deceives, rips off or otherwise cheats people and violates YHWH’s laws?  How can a person keeping the Feast of Unleavened Bread own or invest in a bakery which possesses and sells leavened bread during the festival? 

 

Some Jews who own stores with leavened bread found a way around this festival dilemma.  They would arrange with a Christian friend to sell the leavened bread to him for the eight days of the Passover season.  As soon as the feasts were over, they could buy back the leavened bread.  In the case of a trustworthy friend, no contract or money would even be involved.  It would just be a routine, friendly agreement. 

 

 

An Example 

 

And there are other problems in commercial operations.  Some years ago, this writer had a video store of sorts with a focus on family films and material on the New World Order, some of which will be assessed in subsequent chapters herein.  Material like this is simply not wanted by the general public.  Therefore, all that one can hope for in trying to offer clean, educational and beneficial material is to go broke. 

 

The general public today is obsessed with the most vulgar, violent, evil movies of all time.  They will not usually rent clean or educational films.  They know nothing about the New World Order and are in no mood to learn about it either. 

 

One of the great programs on the New World Order and one which the plutocrats and movers and shakers on the world scene have had in plan for the United States was essentially revealed in a television mini-series a few years ago called “Amerika” --starring Kris Kristofferson, Robert Urich and others. 

 

It finally was eventually released as a home movie on five video cassettes which ran several hours in length.  It was available.  So this writer bought a copy, in hopes of using it to introduce to others the (at least) planned future for America (although these wishes of the plutocrats will likely fail to materialize--as mentioned earlier, and as will be further outlined in later chapters herein on prophecy and government). 

 

Nevertheless, “Amerika” right now appears to be the current thinking of the ruling elite.  From that perspective, it is tremendously educational and something people of religious faith should want to watch.  But as always, the general public was totally uninterested in this theme.  Thus, there was little interest in it. 

 

This writer had a friend and customer of sorts who came by about every couple of weeks and rented some of these beneficial movies.  This so-called friend was a fellow Sabbathkeeper, feast day keeper and understood a little about Identity and race (topics which most other persons are utterly lost upon). 

 

 

The Rip Off 

 

This friend was a member of Dan Gayman’s Identity Church of Israel in Southwestern Missouri.  He was so devoted to Gayman that there was little room for him to grow in grace and knowledge (as is often the case with most Christians who are members of some denomination). 

 

One day, my friend wanted to watch the Amerika film, but was only able to get volume one as a start with a presumed intention of getting the other four volumes later (as they were available).  He was not charged for volume one.  It was a freebie.  Presumably, he watched it because his wife brought it back in a few days.  She never said a word.  She dropped the film off and neither of them (her or her husband) ever came back. 

 

In my later check of the film (as was usually done on all returned movies), there was an obvious problem.  The first part of it had been eaten up in a VCR player.  This is not a totally impossible problem, although it is rare.  Most people either have clean VCR machines or operate them properly so that they do not ruin films, but some do not. 

 

If the damaged portion is limited, it is possible to splice it out and continue to use the tape.  However, the volume one of Amerika was heavily damaged and even after trying to fix it, the damage was still noticeable. 

 

In my opinion, it is almost a certainty that my so-called religious friend or his family done the deed.  After this incident, he and his wife never came back to my store.  They never said a word about thank you, sorry your tape was messed up or anything else.  It appeared that we became enemies when my tape was messed up (as appears to be the case, de facto). 

 

 

Honor 

 

The honorable and correct thing to do when a person messes up borrowed property from someone else is to take the property back and tell the owner of the damage and offer to pay for it.  If the damage was slight, there would normally be no problem.  But if it was serious, then the person causing it should pay for it.  Manifestly, this is what the Scriptures teach and demand. 

 

Over the years, it has been a strange thing to have to acknowledge, but only a very few people will do the honorable thing.  Most persons who mess a movie up will subtly and silently bring it back (messed up) and then never come back again to face the owner.  Perhaps it is just human nature to want to hide and not face someone that was just cheated and taken advantage of. 

 

Most individuals are certainly in this category.  If they mess up a borrowed item, they try to return it without any discussion or acknowledgment of any damage done.  They then vanish into the woodwork to never be seen again. 

 

Tragically, this writer must confess to the same sins in my life.  Because i, too, have done the precise same thing on occasion (even once or twice on a rented movie).  This confession of my shame and dishonor has been painful for me to have to face up to.  But it is truth and needs to be told (just like the sins of the people in the Scriptures were laid out for all to behold). 

 

Since this is the evil, deceptive human approach to avoid responsibility, it is natural that unconverted, carnal people would follow this practice.  But supposedly converted persons, like my friend, should not do this evil and especially to a so-called religious brother of similar faith.  If a person cheats his religious brother, there is no end to what he would do to outsiders. 

 

 

A Web Site 

 

At the start of Hanukkah in 2001, this writer chose to place the then volumes I, II and III of this production on the Internet.  A local Internet service company, headed by a long-haired man, was contacted to supply a web site.  Actually, many or most of these Internet companies offer Internet web sites free to their Internet subscribers.  So they are comparably inexpensive and easy to place on the net. 

 

In my case, my computer is too old fashioned for an Internet connection.  So the best option seemed to be one of paying a local Internet company and having them set up the web site for a fee (this seems to be a fairly simply action taking just a few minutes (evidently 15 minutes at the most).  This course was followed and a payment of $95 was made in advance to the man on a second day of the week (the Christian Monday). 

 

The long-haired man informed me that it would take 24 hours to register my Internet name in the system and he would put my site up immediately.  He was asked if i could call him the next day (the Christian Tuesday) to learn if the listing was cleared as i wanted to mail a letter to some Christian leaders, in which mention was going to be made to the Internet web site.  He said yes. 

 

So, the next day, i called him several times and he was always out or busy (after taking my money, he lost all interest in being receptive to my needs).  After several more phone calls the next day, the man was reached.  He said the system was go.  So i mailed 422 letters (mainly to the Church of God Abrahamic Faith and a few to some of the Sardis groups, as will be discussed in a later chapter herein). 

 

 

The Problem 

 

As this writer was not on the net and since i had no access to the net except at a library some 27 miles away (with limited hours) and since the snows had been heavy and i could not easily get off or back on the mountain where i lived, a check of the listing was not made until three weeks later.  To my surprise, the web site could not be found. 

 

The man was contacted on a sixth day of the week (the Christian Friday).  He insisted that the site was put on line three weeks earlier as he stipulated.  Next, we agreed that i would call him back later that day and he would tell me the status of the web site. 

 

Again, every time i called, he was either out or busy with a client (when some people goof, they react by hiding out and not being accessible to people they have wronged).  Actually, this is what happened with Adam and Eve when they sinned.  They tried to hide.  We all do it because of the role of pride and vanity in our wretched carnal natures. 

 

So there was further slippage to the next second day of the week.  This time, the man was reached and responded that he did not find the problem until the last Friday night.  The site’s address was www.ezekiel-goodnews-people.com (at that time).  He told me that he had incorrectly spelled ezekiel as exeziel. 

 

Later, it developed that i discovered that not only did he incorrectly spell ezekiel, but that he had formatted the whole site wrong. 

 

In time, the computer man eventually got the site properly listed.  The only trouble was that i had mailed a letter to 422 Christian leaders asking them to mention the site to their congregations and/or in their news letters.  Obviously, they could never find the web site based on how the man had incorrectly listed it (assuming that that was what happened, as he alleged to me). 

 

The solution seemed to be that i would have to write a second letter to all 422 people and apologize and tell them what happened.  i did this (concurrently with this writing).  With 34 cents postage, an envelope, a couple of pages of typed data and the cost would be at least a couple of hundred dollars for me--all unnecessary, simply because the Internet firm had messed up. 

 

 

Now, the Relevance 

 

All of the way through this ordeal, the long-haired man was not overly concerned.  In other words, the mess up was my problem and not his problem.  He never offered any form of apology or restitution to me.  The fact that i would be out another $200 was just tough.  So the question must arise as to what should be done in this instance (from the standpoint of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”). 

 

First, i had a moral obligation to write the second letter to the people who had received the first letter.  True, with a little searching on the net, they probably could have found the listing (but few people have enough interest to do any searching of the net for remarks on Ezekiel). 

 

While it would fall on me to apologize to the letter recipients, what about the long-haired man’s moral obligation to me?  In fact, did he have an obligation to take corrective action (restitution) after messing things up and putting enormous hurt on me?

 

Of course, a person could go to court and probably collect some damages.  But the long-haired man appeared to be a Christian man (or at least, he conveyed that image).  As a Christian, what should he have done? 

 

Well, per Christian theology, the long-haired man probably had little or no obligation.  He could effectively give me the finger and it was just my tough “luck” (per Christian America’s lingo), unless a court action was pursued to force him to act responsibly and fairly.  But from the standpoint of the Torah, the solution was quite manifest. 

 

 

A Moral Duty? 

 

The former comments on commercialism and the Torah spell out the duties of people to treat others fairly and right in all commercial transactions.  There must never be any overreaching (the Hebrew “ona’ah,” as discussed earlier) or taking advantage of some one else, per the Tanakh (Ex 20:15; Lev 19:13, 35-36; 25:14; Deut 25:13-15; Prov 16:11; Isa 33:15-16; Mic 6:11).  Since it is in the Torah, it is a question of sin. 

 

In the instance at hand, the long-haired man’s intent to wrong me becomes quite irrelevant.  He did wrong me.  He lied to me; he cost me a great deal of extra money, embarrassment, etc; and he would have even cheated me out of the money paid him from day one if i had not pushed him for a resolution of the mess he created. 

 

Morally, per the Torah, the long-haired man should have written a letter of apology and mailed it to the 422 recipients of my prior letter.  Morally, it was his obligation to correct the wrong done. 

 

Probably, this is a type of sin of ignorance which could have ultimately been forgiven if the man would have offered a sacrifice in Second Temple days, after he had apologized to me and repaired the damage done (by writing the letter and paying for its mailing). 

 

This correcting process involves the Scriptural concept of restitution, as discussed earlier.  Restitution is a part of the repentance process.  Scriptural forgiveness seems to be clearly linked to restitution, also as was discussed earlier. 

 

 

More on the Long-Haired Man 

 

By the way, the long-haired man operating the Internet service soon went broke and out of business shortly after my series of problems with him.  Effectively, the $95 payment made by me was almost a total loss since he only had my web site up correctly for about two weeks or so. 

 

The point is that people involved in a commercial activity obligate themselves to treating others right, per the Torah’s admonitions.  When we act irresponsibly, carelessly or whatever, and when we bring hurt upon others (and with or without intent), we incur a moral obligation to make things right.  A damaged person should not have to go to court in order to obtain redress and restitution. 

 

Now, while one might expect this wretchedness and evil from Christian business people, this is not the way the game is played by YHWH’s Torah.  The Torah is clear that we do create moral obligations to others when we act irresponsibly, carelessly, etc to bring hurt upon others.  And in this context, our sincerity and/or intent are not totally the issues. 

 

 

An Israeli Case   

 

In 1995, a three-day rock concert took place in Arad, Israel.  A heavy-metal band called Mashina and other popular rock bands caused a huge turn out from obsessed Israeli youths.  The stadium involved held 18,000 people, but thousands more arrived and attempted to get into the stadium.  A metal gate collapsed, trapping many of them.  Three teen-agers were trampled to death. 

 

The Israeli authorities indicted four Jews who promoted the event with criminal charges.  In 2001, all four were tried and found guilty of negligent homicide and given prison sentences and community service (Jan 4, 2002, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 6-7).  Of course, this or something far more stringent is what should have happened. 

 

Per the Torah, these men were guilty of manslaughter and would have had to flee for their lives to the cities of refuge.  Otherwise, the next of kin of the dead kids carried a moral obligation to see them also killed. 

 

 

The Role of Corporations 

 

The point of mentioning this event is how often would such action be taken in the Christian West and particularly if a corporation is involved?  Actually, in the Christian West, corporations have been formed specifically to shield and protect criminal or negligent actions of people involved in commercial activities. 

 

Theoretically, of course, corporate officials can be indicted and charged for personal misconduct in such actions.  But this rarely happens.  Instead, the more common response is that the corporation is charged for shoddy workmanship or mishandling the event or something similar.  In the long run, the corporation may be fined, but the people involved will usually get off scot-free--completely. 

 

An excellent presentation on corporate evils was outlined in an article by Christopher H. Schmitt on “Wages of Sin Why lawbreakers still win government contracts” in the May 13, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (USNWR, p. 28-31). 

 

As Schmitt illustrates, a huge number of large US corporations violate US laws, rules and regulations in their contracting operations with the US government.  Yet, nothing rarely happens to these law violators, other than they may have to pay a fine if they get caught. 

 

USNWR said that “In the past dozen years, 30 of the 43 largest federal contractors have racked up more than 400 enforceable cases, resulting in least 29 criminal convictions, 286 civil settlements, and 88 administrative settlements, mostly involving their government contracts... The companies have breached environmental, labor and securities regulations... they have paid $3.4 billion in fines, penalties and restitution.” 

 

Other than paying these fines, most contracting firms are never otherwise held accountable for most of their actions.  And importantly, they continue to get federal contracts. 

 

In citing some specifics, Schmitt noted several large, repeat offenders--like GE with $983 million in settlements in 63 cases, TRW with $390 million in settlements in 17 cases, Boeing with $358 million in settlements in 36 cases, Lockheed Martin with $232 million in settlements in 63 cases, United Technologies with $215 million in settlements in 18 cases and so it goes. 

 

Schmitt noted that the small fries get nailed often, but it’s more likely that senior executives were involved in the wrongdoing--say those familiar with the question.  Too, large contractors have more financial juice to make a case go away (by hiring pricey legal talent, creating compliance programs or paying settlements). 

 

In other words, the fat cats of these cheating and dishonest companies get away with their skullduggery because they have huge sums of money to buy the best of lawyers, create damage control programs and make money settlements to the government. 

 

The case of modern corruption involving the Enron Corporation and the Arthur Anderson accounting firm will be assessed in subsequent chapters herein.  These two companies have received much publicity over their illegal actions. 

 

 

Great Latitude 

 

Later chapters will discuss the legal organizational aspects and operations of corporations and how they are very contrary to Scripture.  Yet, in the Christian West, the corporation is an incredibly popular business organization.  As will be covered later, the legal concept is that the corporation is a legal person, separate and distinct from its owners and employees. 

 

When damaging things happen, because of incompetence or criminal actions of corporate employees, there is rarely any adverse fall-out to corporate owners, officials or employees.  This is one of the tragedies in the Christian West. 

 

But this is not the way it is per the Torah.  The Torah is very clear that a man must carry responsibility and be held accountable for his own personal actions. 

 

The fact that a person was sincere and did not intend to hurt others is a mitigating issue.  But it does not change the overall guilt.  Thus, in the case of the Israeli teenagers, the men involved were irresponsible and careless in their duties.  They were guilty of manslaughter and should have had to flee for their lives to the cities of refuge. 

 

And if there was any criminal intent on their parts, they should have been executed as the Torah requires.  Tragically, this thinking is largely void in the Christian West where almost no one can be held accountable for their actions (well, at least, no one in the sense of the big shots and fat cats.  Maybe, the little people might be prosecuted and charged, but not the man with money). 

 

 

Some Final Words  

 

The famous Russian author and defector to the West, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, correctly zeroed in on the Christian West when he summed it up some years ago as-- “Something which is almost incomprehensible to the human mind is the West’s fantastic greed for profit and gain, which goes beyond all reason, all limitations, all conscience.”  Of course, Solzhenitsyn had it right! 

 

Banking, commerce, trade and business functions are not reflected in a favorable sense in the Scriptures.   As noted earlier, most banking operations are certainly in a sin category, and the very meaning of the word Canaanite is “merchant, trafficker” (per Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary,” #3669).  Yes, it was the evil Canaanites and their Amalekite cousins who were merchants and commercial traders. 

 

Conversely, the racial Israelites were more often prone to be people of the land--like small farmers, herdsmen, craftsmen (i.e., Shaul was a tent maker).  Josephus noted that “Ours is not a maritime country; neither commerce nor the intercourse which it promotes with the outside world has any attraction for us” (“Against Apion,” 1:60).  The “for us” here must be a reference to the true Israelite Jews and not to the Amalekites. 

 

In “Sketches of Jewish Social Life” (p. 187), Alfred Edersheim noted that in the entire, 63 tractates of the Talmud, there is never a word in honor or support of commerce, but many words and remarks on the evils of trade and money-making (especially banking, as explicitly quoted earlier). 

 

In the Talmud, one contributor, R. Yochanan, explained wisdom in the vein of Deuteronomy 30:12.  He said that it is not in heaven or beyond the sea (in the sense of traders or merchants).  Clearly, true Jews looked down upon banking, merchandising and trade. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 243--Gender Separation

 

 

Cultural Gender Separation 

 

The contemporary liberation of women to go naked (in varying degrees) in public has contributed to a developing tragedy and sickness in the House of Yisrael nations in the age end.  Not only are women parading all over the country with little or no clothes on and showing almost everything they have, but they are sadly mixing in society with men. 

 

There is little doubt about it, females should be kept segregated from males in worship, in school and study (as in Jewish, Muslim and other religious schools); and indeed, in the whole culture as much as possible--especially, in any public gatherings (as outlined in Zech 12:11-14). 

 

For a classic example in modern Israel, many Israelis go to the mountainside grave site of Shimon Bar Yohai, a first century mystic and festival patron.  Men and women are physically separated at the site.  As will be described in some detail in a later chapter, the Israeli government agreed to even provide gender separated paths up the mountain for the pilgrims (May 18, 2001, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 7).  

 

 

Israeli Bus Service 

 

Moreover, “some” bus services in the state of Israel operate with separate seating arrangements for men and women and separate entrances for men versus women.  In most Ultra Orthodox (Haredi) areas, men enter the buses in the front doors and sit in the front section.  Women enter buses at the rear doors and sit in the back section of buses (much like the Blacks used to do in the segregated, old, American South). 

 

A news item in the Feb 18, 2000, “Jerusalem Post” said that the “Egged” bus service ran a separated gender seating requirement in its new bus service between the Haredi neighborhoods in Ashdod and Bnei Brak. 

 

Apparently, there was a large protest from some of the secular Israelis in the area.  So the Israeli Transport Ministry ordered the company to stop the practice and integrate the passengers.  But the question persisted as Ultra Orthodox leaders protested vigorously about integrating men and women on the buses. 

 

The conflict between the Haredi people and the government continued for much of 2000 and 2001.  Finally, the Israeli Minister of Transportation developed a plan to offer two bus services to the haredi communities involved--one for men and one for women (Nov 30, 2001, “Forward,” p. 2).  Apparently, this latest plan seems to have met with the approval of all parties involved and will be initiated. 

 

One more point on the Haredi buses need mentioning.  Whereas most Israeli buses are allowed to play secular music from local radio stations (the typically vulgar demented rock so common in the Christian West), the Ultra Orthodox Haredi buses are prohibited from this display.  The Haredi buses must either play religious music or nothing at all. 

 

 

In Worship

 

Significantly, gender separation has always been the historic tradition in Jewish worship (“Concise Dictionary of Judaism,” p. 230).  In the eyes of religious Jews, the mixing of the sexes in worship is a pagan practice (“To Eliminate the Opiate,” p. 152). 

 

The most important, contemporary site in Judaism is the Western Wailing Wall at the Temple Mount (which will be addressed more fully in comments to follow in this and later chapters).  It has always been unthinkable that women and men would mix to worship and pray at this important place.  Men and women are separated or segregated at the Western Wall.  They are not allowed to mix. 

 

The separation or segregation of men and women in worship is clearly established in the construction and use of the Temple.  The first large court in the facility’s interior was the court of the women.  Women could not enter the inner Temple areas beyond this court.  Only circumcised male Israelites could go on into the Temple worship and sacrifice areas. 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 15, p. 966) notes that a balcony surrounded the court of the women at the Temple, from which the women could watch the celebration of the Festival of Water-drawing and other events in the Temple during Sukkot, as discussed in a prior chapter. 

 

 

The Synagogue 

 

A preceding chapter also described the early Second Temple synagogues and their use of balconies or galleries for the separated women (and children). 

 

Surely, this synagogue construction was predicated upon the Temple stipulations.  The very fact that YESHUA worshipped in the Second Temple synagogues gives them enormous respect and credibility as being proper, per the previous discussion.  His life was based upon true worship (Jo 4:24).  Thus, the Second Temple synagogue worship procedures must have been conducted essentially in truth. 

 

The point of this is that the Scriptural approach requires that men and women be segregated in worship.  Manifestly, this principle applies as much as practical to the entire culture. 

 

This is certainly the implication of I Corinthians 14:34-35, where Shaul said that women should wait until they get home to ask their husbands about things during worship services.  Obviously, they had to wait to talk to their husbands after they got home because they were physically separated during worship and probably even afterwards (until they did get home). 

 

Orthodox religious functions (worship, school, etc), generally, and Ultra Orthodox, particularly, are especially strict about the separation of males and females.  Orthodox synagogues specifically maintain separated seating arrangements for men and women, as mentioned previously. 

 

In the April-June 2002 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 12), editor Rich Aharon Chaimberlin tells about his visit to an Orthodox synagogue one Sabbath in Jerusalem. 

 

There was, of course, the segregated seating arrangement for men and women.  The women’s section was behind a “see-through” curtain and to the rear of the men.  Thus, the women and children could see what was happening, but they were totally separated from it. 

 

 

Why? 

 

While married men and women might appear together in public, this does not seem to be the way which unmarried males and females should react, per the Word.  This gender separation is good because it helps prevent fornication and adultery in the contemporary society by reducing and/or eliminating temptation and opportunity. 

 

The Talmud teaches that a woman’s voice is a sexual enticement--as well as her hair and her legs (“Ber 24a, quoted in Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 16, p. 627); and that private meetings between persons of the opposite sex are strictly prohibited (Sh. Ar., EH 22, “Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 14, p. 1206).  Clearly, enforced gender separation supports these teachings. 

 

 

The Moslems 

 

The pattern for Muslim women was outlined in a brief report in the April 28, 1983, Guam “Pacific Daily News,” in an article from Mecca, Saudi Arabia on “Saudi King:  Segregate Women.” 

 

The article said:  “King Fawd has ‘re-instructed’ government departments and private businesses not to employ women in jobs where they might mix with men, a Saudi newspaper reported Wednesday.  Islamic laws forbid employing women in jobs ‘not suiting their feminine nature.’  Al-Nadwa newspaper quoted the king’s official circular as stating--viz: 

 

“The circular was issued because ‘some official bodies’ had requested permission to employ women in jobs where they would come into contact with men, it said.  Saudi officials said the king’s order pertained to Saudi and foreign women alike.”  While Western women feminists didn’t like it, they have had to abide by it. 

 

In October 2002, a report from Iran said that at a film award presented by an Iranian actress to Ali Zamani, as best director, the actress gave him a peck on the forehead (Oct 18, 2002, “The Week,” p. 6).  The pair were promptly arrested and jailed for violating Muslim laws prohibiting touching between men and women. 

 

 

Afghanistan 

 

By 2001, an Islamic state surfaced briefly in Afghanistan (as was mentioned in a preceding chapter).  One of the first edicts of this move to Islam was a separation of males and females as much as possible in the culture.  Little boys and little girls were no longer allowed to play together (per an NPR news report on May 26, 2001). 

 

The Afghanistanians went even further when they began to force women out of the public workplace as much as possible.  Under the Taliban Muslim beliefs and practices, most public jobs were barred from women. 

 

With the big focus upon the Taliban during the GWB War on Terrorism in the fall of 2001, the controlled American media was obsessed with the evils of the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan.  Of course, there was an extraordinary focus upon the alleged mistreatment and abuse of women and children by the Taliban. 

 

The December 3, 2001, “Time” magazine (p. 34-49) had a lengthy report on “Lifting the Veil” to assess the evils of the Taliban. 

 

According to the Taliban rules of conduct, women were prohibited from:  “Speaking or laughing loudly; Riding bicycles or motorcycles; Showing their ankles; Wearing shoes that click or makeup; Leaving home unaccompanied by a close male relative; Attending school; Speaking to men who are not close relatives; and working (except for a few doctors and nurses).” 

 

However, there were other things which could get a woman into trouble in both the Taliban culture and its successor.  The Nov 11, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A2) had a story by Valerie Reitman on “Afghan women pardoned” which focused upon the Muslim society since the Taliban lost power. 

 

Per Ms Reitman, the new Afghanistanian president, Hamid Karzai, had recently pardoned some 21 women who were in jail in Kabul, Afghanistan for various offenses (including adultery, dating men not chosen by their families, etc).  The local Kabul police chief said that he would continue to arrest women for these sex-related violations. 

 

One released female was a 17-year-old girl who had been imprisoned for refusing to marry the man that her family had selected for her. 

 

Obviously, this list of prohibitions in effect in Afghanistan had the world’s feminist movement in a state of panic.  It is no wonder that the liberal, Western society called for the total destruction of the Taliban (as will be assessed in some detail in subsequent chapters herein). 

 

 

Yes, Christianity Too 

 

Even Christianity in the Middle Ages and certainly in early America never allowed the unmarried sexes to mix and assuredly not in private.  There was no dating or courting to speak of in society.  And when unmarried couples did go out in public, it was socially mandatory for the girl to be chaperoned.  Interestingly, early baseball stands had a separated section set aside, specifically for “unattended young ladies.” 

 

 

Source of Mixing of the Sexes in Public 

 

Since the Scriptural outline is so specific, one has to wonder where all of this mixing of the sexes (and the resulting promiscuity) came from as found in the current, Western, Christian culture.  The answer is fairly easy.  It comes from the old sun worship cults and not from the Scriptures. 

 

Of course, many Christians ignorantly believe that men and women can freely mix in society on the premise that this is the basis of NT teaching.  True, Shaul wrote that there were neither male or female in The MESSIAH (Gal 3:28).  But his words were in the context of salvation in YESHUA and not in the vein of altering the prevailing Scriptural custom and culture which he fully supported (Acts 28:17; Rom 13:7). 

 

The context of Galatians 3:26-29 proves conclusively that the issue on being the same concerns the question of salvation and not any attempt to redefine the status of man versus woman as already legislated upon extensively by YHWH in His Word.  Thus, the different classifications in Galatians 3:28 are the same in terms of salvation and their relationship to YESHUA (Gal 3:26, 29). 

 

Therefore, the slave may remain a slave in this life.  But both the slave and his master have the same position for salvation and a relationship with YESHUA.  The same statement applies to the Jew versus the House of Yisrael Greek (they are the same in terms of salvation and YESHUA; but certainly, different in the flesh in this life).  Men and women are different in the flesh in this life, but the same in terms of salvation. 

 

It was this Shaul who also said that women should keep silent in the Assembly and not teach or exercise authority over men (to be conclusively established in subsequent comments).  Surely, Shaul did not intend for Galatians 3:28 to alter his other words (at I Cor 14:34-35; I Tim 2:10-15).  He was no hypocrite or fool.  What he said in one place did not and would not have been contradicted by what he said in another place. 

 

So, what is the source of the mixing of the sexes in public?  “What the Great Religions Teach” (p. 9) notes that in sun worshipping Zoroastrianism, women were given full and complete equal status with men and even in public assemblies.  Zoroastrianism is the basis for much of the later sun worship practices found in Greece and Rome where men and women seem to have freely mixed in society. 

 

Just as Christendom picked upon the Grecian sun worship practice of women going about bareheaded in public (to be discussed in succeeding chapters), it is clear that Christianity picked upon the integration and free mixing of men and women in the entire culture and society. 

 

The sun worship culture allowed sexual and/or gender integration, both in religious and cultural affairs.  In fact, much of this integration involved or promoted and encouraged sexual promiscuity and orgies.  One can readily see what gender integration has done to the Christian West, in terms of sexual and marriage problems. 

 

Truly, modern dating and courting practices stem from the sun worship sources and are at serious odds with the Scriptural demands for separation of the sexes.  Actually, courting and dating practices were not needed in the Scriptures because marriages were generally arranged by parents. 

 

 

Dancing Revisited 

 

“Encyclopaedia Judaica” offers an interesting comment in suggesting that there were restrictions on mixed dancing by men and women (v. 5, 1264-1265).  Apparently, the “rabbis” frowned upon or did not allow mixed dancing in the historic vein.  Historically, Jewish folk dancing was not mixed, although times have changed in modern Judaism and there is now some mixed dancing. 

 

If the student of truth will examine the Scriptural references to actual cases of people dancing, the conclusion seems to be that the dances involved only persons of one of the sexes.  They were not mixed.  Even at the Temple, women during Sukkot would dance in the court of the women while men would dance perhaps further in the complex. 

 

The available evidence suggests that most dancing was done in groups of men or women and/or perhaps individually by a single person at one time (as mentioned heretofore with David). 

 

It is inconceivable that these dances ever involved close contact or even of holding hands (and especially, in the case of mixed dancing).  Likely, they consisted of a person dancing largely alone (jumping and kicking the feet into the air), even when dancing as a part of a group of dancers. 

 

A person might suppose that dancing at a wedding would be the clear exception and particularly since weddings are largely private, religious affairs.  But even here, in historic Judaism, the dancing was usually separated by gender.  However, some Jewish communities have allowed some forms of mixed dancing at weddings in the Diaspora over the years since the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE). 

 

Perhaps the Yemenite Jewish culture best illustrates the Scriptural position on dancing (after all, the Yemenite Jews were a very ancient group, which were largely cut off from much of the rest of the world--including the rest of Jewry).  “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 16, p. 758) notes that “Men and women never dance together and rarely see each other during dance.” 

 

 

More on the Western Wall 

 

Incidentally, the Western Wall around the Temple Mount is considered an Orthodox synagogue.  Accordingly, there are strict gender separations at the Wall between men and women (as pointed out above herein).  Today, during festivals, the men sing and dance in their section while the women sing and dance in their part. 

 

There simply is no mixed dancing (or even mixed singing) at the Western Wall.  And as noted above, that was the evident situation at the Temple--where the sexes were separated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 244--Men

 

 

Hair 

 

Mention has already been made on some men’s rebellious, sun worship practices of having long, effeminate hair (discussed formerly).  But that’s only a part of the problem with men in today’s modern, contemporary society.  The question of shaving and/or wearing a beard is also of similar significance (as also briefly noted previously). 

 

YHWH’s Torah is quite precise on this point.  Men are not to round the corners of their head or mar (destroy or shave) the edges or corners of their beards (Lev 19:27).  Assuredly, the corners or edges of a man’s beard are the jaw bone areas on the face.  Obviously, the command to not mar or destroy the beard at that place certainly refers to shaving. 

 

“The Targums of Onkelos,” previously mentioned, and translated by J. W. Etheridge, interprets Leviticus 19:27 as saying “You shall not round off your hair from side to side (like Egyptian sun worship priests and Catholic monks have tended to do over the years, as noted earlier) and you shall not shave the edge of your beards.” 

 

How about trimming the beard or should it be left to grow long without trimming.  Probably, the Targums, just cited, have it right.  In other words, the sin would evidently arise if and when a man shaves to actually “destroy” the beard on his face at its edges and/or jaw bone corners. 

 

Consequently, it might possibly be that trimming is allowable by YHWH’s law, although a person would have to study the matter and attempt to obey The ELOHIM in a good conscience. 

 

According to the law for YHWH’s priesthood, the priests were not to make a baldness on their heads, nor were they to shave the corner of their beards (Lev 21:5).  They were to be set apart and kodesh to serve The ELOHIM.  Shaving a bald spot on their heads or shaving their beards would defile them.  Exodus 19:6 extends this mitzwah to Israelite men in general. 

 

 

More on Tonsures 

 

In terms of tonsures (the shaving of a round bald spot on the head), as implied above and as discussed earlier, Darrell W. Conder notes that the ancient Egyptian priests of Isis and the Druids both used a type of tonsure, very similar to the kind shaven on the heads of various Catholic priests and monks. 

 

Conder quotes a Dr Churchward who said that the tonsure represented a disk of the sun (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 190).  In modern times, the well known General of the Army Douglas MacArthur had a distinctive tonsure on his head. 

 

As outlined in a prior chapter on understanding, the point was made that The ELOHIM often establishes a general rule or standard (usually, in a negative mitzwah) and then may express one or more exceptions (typically, in a positive command).  The beard question falls in this category, where the general rule is for Israelites to not shave their beards off.  Exceptions would arise with lepers and Nazarites, as noted earlier. 

 

 

Other Scriptures as Well! 

 

Being aware of the Torah and this injunction, Yirmeyahu twice wrote a condemnation of certain peoples who shave or destroy their beards (Jer 9:25-26; 25:17-23). The KJV translation on these verses is quite poor with a reference to “upmost corners.”  When correctly translated, they both refer to the cutting the corners of the beard (shaving). 

 

Students of truth can check the underlying Hebrew and several other literal translations which do some justice on these texts.  The actual Hebrew is plain enough and many translations do correctly communicate it.  It’s just that the KJV and certain other English translations fail to pick upon the topic under discussion. 

 

Dr Marvin R Wilson, Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Gordon College, notes that the Talmud says that “the glory of a face is its beard” and that the early Rabbinic literature calls the occupation of a barber “the craft of robbers” (per his article on “The Appearance of Jesus,” in the Nov/Dec 1993 “Jerusalem Perspective,” p. 10-11). 

 

As outlined heretofore, Moshe also made an interesting point when he wrote that women are not to wear what pertains to a man and men are not to wear that which pertains to a woman (Deut 22:5). 

 

“The Targums of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee” (p. 622-623), as translated by J. W. Etheridge, interprets Deuteronomy 22:5 as saying “Neither shall a man shave himself so as to appear like a woman; for everybody who doeth so is an abomination before the Lord thy God” 

 

It is then no wonder that the Apostle Shaul would come along in his day and write a condemnation of effeminate men, along with idolaters, fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals, as outlined earlier on the question of long hair (I Cor 6:9).  Is it effeminate for a man to shave and have a smooth face like a woman? 

 

If a man combines shaving with wearing long, effeminate hair (long hair on a man constitutes sin, as discussed in former chapters), then the link to a woman is unmistakable. 

 

 

YESHUA Was An Example of Righteousness 

 

A few Christians (not many for sure) are aware of the fact that the life of YESHUA was supposed to be an example for His followers.  But few seem to attach any importance to the fact that He wore a beard as a part of His life and culture (per the Hebrew, at Song of Sol 5:13). 

 

Not only did He wear a beard, but He became a symbol of shame in two most unique ways.  In the first place, He hung naked on the stake of death (Ps 69:19; Isa 47:3; Jo 19:24; Heb 12:2).  Shame is assuredly attached to nakedness (Rev 16:15). 

 

This is a most interesting presentation in the Scriptures, primarily because of the way modern men and women seem to go about regularly and often in some form of nudity, but never appearing to exhibit any shame at all.  What a warped society that today’s modern world has turned out to be. 

 

But as noted in a prior chapter, there is more to this nakedness matter because not only was YESHUA stripped naked, but His beard was plucked out as a part of His trial and punishment before His actual impalement (Ps 69:7; Isa 50:6). 

 

These two events combined to make Him a classic example of shame even in death.  Most sun worshipping Christians can never grasp it.  But a man is shamed (and should be ashamed) without hair on his face--just as he should be shamed in nudity.  

 

There is an interesting Scriptural basis which very precisely established the reality of shame being attached to a man when he is shaven.  In David’s day, Hanun took David’s servants and shaved them (I Chron 19:4-5).  These servants then were greatly ashamed.  So David told them to tarry at Jericho until their beards had grown back, and then they could return to him (in Jerusalem). 

 

The prophet Yeshayahu seems to have similarly linked the clean, shaven faces of Moab to shame and sorrow (Isa 15:2).

 

 

Some Interesting Points 

 

The point being is that Adam man is supposed to have hair on his face.  This is most interesting because it is only the Adam kind who can grow beards and properly obey YHWH’s law on this question.  Importantly, the behemah and chaiyah created kinds cannot grow beards in their true, natural states. 

 

It appears that in those instances where a modern day behemah, chaiyah or nokri/nekar man has a beard or hair growing on his face, it is due to the evident presence of Adamite genes, resulting from the many centuries of miscegenation of the different races.  In today’s civilization and culture, it is extremely difficult to find persons of true, racial purity. 

 

As noted in previous comments, most modern Adamite, behemah and chaiyah peoples are greatly inter-mixed, as Yirmeyahu suggested some 2,600 years ago (Jer 31:27).  Consequently, vast numbers of modern day behemah and chaiyah males have Adamite genes which may allow them to grow some hair on their faces, although it is often spotty and straggly. 

 

Apparently, hair grows somewhat easier on persons with behemah ancestry, as opposed to those with chaiyah genes.  Many people with heavy behemah genes can grow beards.  It would appear that only full blooded or almost full blooded behemah cannot grow beards at all.  Conversely, men with chaiyah ancestry can be plagued for generations in trying to grow decent beards. 

 

In any case, it must be significant that at creation, only Adamic men could properly grow beards and obey YHWH’s Torah on this question.  With such a created privilege and blessing (to be able to grow a beard), why would any man want to try to alter his created status and appearance and willfully choose to violate The ELOHIM’s great mitzwah on this subject? 

 

 

Why? 

 

So, why do modern Western men like to shave and make their faces effeminate?  Well, that’s part of the culture and practice inherited from the Greek and Roman sun worshippers.  Shaving was popular in those societies--as well as among the ancient Egyptians, Hamites, Hittites and Phoenician Edomites (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 4, p. 356). 

 

Obviously, YHWH’s command for Israelites to wear a beard is just one of the many requirements which set Israelites apart from other peoples.  Hence, what a joke it is for heathen, sun worshipping Christians to shave (and commit sin)--all the while that they carry the Scriptures around and pretend to live by them. 

 

Mention might be made further to the ancient Egyptian sun worshippers.  They not only cut or shaved their heads in peculiar fashions, but they often did the same with their beards.  Sometimes, they would partially shave their beards (clearly, at the corners) to produce a goat tee or something similar that was not only weird, but in clear contradiction to YHWH’s Word. 

 

“Maimonides The Commandments” (p. 42) makes the point that the action of marring the beard was a practice of idolatrous priests and was well known in Maimonides days (12th century CE) as a custom of European priests to shave off portions or all of their beards.  This source did not use the words Catholic Christian priests, but that was the obvious intent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 245--Women

 

 

Head Coverings   

 

Having looked at how the Western Christian culture treats men, it will next be important to focus on women from the standpoint of the Word versus Christianity.  The Book prescribes (especially the Torah--Gen 24:65; Num 5:18; S of S 5:7; I Cor 11:5-6) that women are supposed to be covered in worship and whenever they leave the privacy of their homes and families. 

 

Numbers 5:18 proves conclusively the applicability of the woman’s head covering because the woman suspected of adultery was to have her head uncovered for her trial and judgment.  Obviously, the woman should normally and routinely have her head covered in her usual conduct of life.  She was “uncovered” for the test to determine adultery. 

 

Women are supposed to be covered not only with their long hair (yes, long hair and not short hair, as broached earlier--I Cor 11:15), but also a covering (scarf, shawl or large covering of some sort). 

 

As the KJV gives it in I Corinthians 11:14, the issue on hair length is one which involves nature and the natural order.  J. B. Phillips gives this text as “Does not nature itself teach you.”  Thus, it is a natural thing for a woman to have long hair (while it is natural that men not have long hair). 

 

Consequently, a woman must be covered with two forms of covering--long hair (24 hours a day and even when she is in her home) and a veil and covering of her body (yes, a long dress which covers her legs)--when she leaves the privacy of her home. 

 

For sure, this covering should cover all of the hair (because the long hair is a part of the woman’s sexual appeal and qualities which must be reserved for the privacy and enjoyment of her husband, as held by the early “rabbis,” per former comments), and the head (plus, of course, the body), generally, except for the eyes, nose and perhaps some part of the face. 

 

 

The Veil 

 

The required covering, mentioned by Shaul (I Cor 11:5-10), is a veil, as amply established in “The Expositor’s Greek Testament.”  The words cover and covering, mentioned by Shaul (I Cor 11:6-7), come from the Greek “katakaluptos” which means to “cover up or to veil or to cover one’s self” (per Thayer’s “Greek-English Lexicon”). 

 

In “Messianic Jewish Manifesto” (p. 171), Dr David H. Stern gives this passage as “Every man praying or prophesying having (something) down over his head shames his head, but every woman praying or prophesying with head unveiled shames her head... For a man indeed ought not (to have) the head to be veiled.” 

 

While the point of these words are assumed only in the context of worship (praying and prophesying), it must be noted that I Corinthians 11:6-10 is more general and probably requires the veiling without restriction.  But even if Shaul’s words can only be taken in the sense of worship, the requirement for the veiling (when a woman appears in public) is already established in the Tanakh (Gen 24:65; Num 5:18; S of S 5:7). 

 

Therefore, it is useless for opponents of truth to try to come along and insist that the veiling requirement for a woman only applies during worship.  For sure, it applies across the board when a woman leaves the privacy of her home.  Manifestly, the Book teaches the need for women to be veiled when appearing in public.  In I Corinthians 11:5, Shaul merely drives home the need in his comments on worship procedures. 

 

Clearly, the position that the Apostle Shaul took is one of requiring women to be veiled (covered), certainly in worship (and in verses 6-10, in public generally).  Assuredly, this doesn’t mean wearing a little hat or doily of some sort.  It appears to mean a veil or large covering which covers the woman’s nakedness (beyond an essentially small portion of the face needed to see and breathe). 

 

Some persons have tried to assert that Shaul concluded his dissertation on veiling with a statement about contentious persons and no such custom being in the Assemblies (I Cor 11:16) in a way that contradicted everything which he had just stated on the subject (I Cor 11:3-15). 

 

Actually, what Shaul was saying is that his remarks on this issue carried full apostolic authority and believers are not to argue with him over it.  Evidently, some contentious persons were attempting to argue with Shaul over this teaching--perhaps they were trying to justify the position of women going about uncovered, as occurring with the Grecian sun worshipping women (I Cor 11:16). 

 

 

The Whole Body 

 

This covering idea is supposed to extend to the whole body.  This means women should wear long, loose fitting dresses and stockings.  The historic Hebrew culture would never have allowed women to wear mini-skirts or tight fitting dresses and blue jeans.  Plainly, they are supposed to be covered so that their sexual attributes can properly be reserved for their husbands to enjoy in the privacy of their homes. 

 

Finally, per the Word, the uni-sexed dress and appearance (looks, hair styles, etc, as already commented upon) popular in the 20th and early 21st centuries, Western, Christian civilization are definitely out for men and women. 

 

As pointed out in some preceding comments, the Book is very precise in saying that men should not wear the clothes of a woman and women should not wear the clothes of a man (Deut 22:5).  Assuredly, the clothing and dress of the two sexes should be differentiated. 

 

Obviously, questions must arise when women try to justify wearing slacks.  Manifestly, women’s dress should be different than men’s wear.  Consequently, slacks (like blue jeans) seem out of the question and particularly in view of the fact that they are very revealing of the form of a woman’s body.  A previous chapter discussed the reasons why pants seem out of the question for women. 

 

 

The Angels? 

 

Shaul also made a reference to the fact that a woman’s long hair is her “glory” (I Cor 11:15).  Beforehand, he had noted that believers are not to “glory” in the presence of The HIGHEST (I Cor 1:29).  Hence, a woman needs her glory covered with a veil, as Shaul went on to say.  In a third important remark, Shaul put the matter in a linkage with the angels/messengers (I Cor 11:10). 

 

Regarding the creation of Adam (Gen 1:26), an interesting Jewish Midrash (commentary) notes that good messengers are not only guardians of the law, but also guardians of the created order.  Thus, there are texts which suggest that messengers have a role of watching over the election (Ps 138:1; I Pet 1:12). 

 

Otherwise, it must be noted that angels (some or all) are veiled themselves in their appearance before YHWH and His throne (Isa 6:2, as pointed out by A. T. Robertson in his “Word Pictures in the New Testament,” v. iv, p. 161).  It would seem unthinkable for women to appear before YHWH without being veiled--all the while that their overseeing spirits must be veiled before The MOST HIGH. 

 

The point of this is that messengers are in a position of subordination to their head (The ELOHIM) and can be watching over a woman who is supposed to be in subordination to her head (her husband--I Pet 3:1-4).  With this submission of her monitoring, guardian angel, surely the woman should be covered.  The covering demonstrates this subordination.  It suggests submission and humility. 

 

 

Islam 

 

The modern Islamic state of Iran probably is closest to this idea of women being veiled in public in the entire world.  Thus, the movie, “Not Without My Daughter,” with Sally Field, may give a person the best perspective on this theme.  Islamic dress codes for women in Iran have caused quite some concern in the Western Christian nations in the last several years. 

 

The latest Christian flap and indignation occurred in May 2001 when the state of Afghanistan began moving to a religious state, as described in previous comments.  The Afghanistanians, under the Taliban beliefs, imposed veils upon women who appeared in public (Jun 1, 2001, “The Week,” p. 7). 

 

Not only were Muslim women supposed to be veiled, but the government ordered Hindu women to likewise wear veils in public.  Men had to wear beards and pray five times a day.  These new rules caused quite an uproar in the Western Christian press and culture, where such ideas were unheard of. 

 

The liberated feminists in the Christian West and their liberal, humanist and Socialist colleagues were infuriated over what the Taliban was doing in Afghanistan.  Just imagine the impact that these rules would have had around the world should other countries latch onto them. 

 

Actually, these Western Grecian-oriented sun worshippers should have taken a moment to look at the Scriptures which they carry around because many of the Muslim acts by the Taliban will become reality in the world tomorrow under YESHUA’s government and rule.  The Western liberals will be in for a shock one day when they discover that veils and beards become the norm. 

 

In any case, when George W. Bush decided to launch his war against terrorism, by starting in on the Taliban in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, the feminists, liberals and other left wingers were happy with joy.  Bombs would do what the Western, liberal Socialist press had been unable to do.  Afghanistan was bombed into oblivion so that their men could shave and their women could shed their veils. 

 

Along with the general change in attitude toward men and women, one of the big changes which Westerners loved was that the formerly segregated classrooms (between boys and girls) were quickly integrated and mixed.  The March 29, 2002, “The Week,” (p. 2) said that Afghanistan’s school year started with boys and girls in coed classes (and with women teachers). 

 

 

Hypocrite Americans 

 

This happiness over gender integration in Afghanistan is interesting because it demonstrates the incredible hypocrisy and stupidity of the gullible Americans in discussing this subject. 

 

The May 31, 2002, “The Week” (p. 16) had a news item indicting that “Same-sex schools” may be the wave of the future.  Recent studies of same sex schools show that at least girls do better academically in a same sex learning environment.  There is some dispute over the question of learning for boys (some say boys do better with girls). 

 

But the way things are moving, gender separation in school is beginning to even make some sense in the Christian West (incidentally, years ago, this was often the practice--before feminism exploded on the scene to change Western thinking). 

 

 

Mea Shearim 

 

Otherwise, on women covering their bodies, Ultra Orthodox Jewish women would not dare appear in public without having their bodies and heads or hair covered, except for their faces. 

 

The book, “This Is Jerusalem” (p. 58), by Herbert Bishko, addresses the subject of women’s dress with appropriate comments and even a picture of the words of a sign at the entrance of the Mea Shearim area in North Jerusalem.  Mea Shearim is a strong Ultra Orthodox quarter where there are a number of Jewish religious schools and a large Ultra Orthodox community (known as a Haredi community, as noted earlier). 

 

The sign, prepared by the “Committee Guarding Modesty, Mea Shearim and Vicinity, Jerusalem, The Holy City,” reads “Dear Visitor, you are quite welcome to Meah Shearim, but please do not antagonize our religious inhabitants by strolling through our streets in immodest clothing.  Our Torah requires the Jewish woman to be attired in modest dress. 

 

“Modest dress; dress sleeves reaching until below the elbows, (Slacks forbidden), stockings, Married women having their hair covered, etc. are the virtues of the Jewish woman throughout the ages. 

 

“Please do not offend our residents and cause yourself any unnecessary inconvenience.  We beg you not to infringe upon our way of life and ‘holy code of law.’  We beseech you to use discretion by not trespassing our streets in an undesired fashion.” 

 

 

More 

 

The Dec 13, 1999, “Newsweek” magazine had an interesting follow-up story on the “The New Defectors,” by Daniel Klaidman (p. 52-54).  A former chapter noted the restrictions in the community on secular entertainment sources.  Of course, Klaidman went on to try to ridicule and make light of Mea Shearim’s dress code for women and men as well. 

 

Yes, Mea Shearim even has some strict rules for its male members.  Each man must wear (or at least do wear) a full beard, peyot (long locks, which grow from the sideburns, as discussed earlier), full black dress externally (no unnecessary nakedness), silk caftan, and a large fur hat called a “streimal.”  This Haredi community has a roving “modesty patrol” to enforce its rules. 

 

Though some of this dress for men can be argued from the Word, some of it is Scriptural (as elsewhere discussed herein).  Certainly, the black color requirement is doubtful, but being fully dressed and wearing beards cannot be argued.  Even the peyot “may have” some Scriptural basis, depending upon how one reads the Torah (Lev 19:27, as discussed earlier). 

 

Klaidman makes the point that women in the Mea Shearim Haredi community actually shave their heads (probably, this involves married women and certainly in the context that their heads are still covered in public). 

 

Of course, this is a very unscriptural position, as established in other comments herein.  Women were made to have long hair (as I Cor 11:14-15 notes, nature itself teaches that women are to have long hair--after all, a woman’s long hair is part of her sexual enticement and assets). 

 

Many of the Ashkenazi Ultra Orthodox groups are classified as Hasidim (involving ecstasy, mass enthusiasm, close-knit group cohesion and charismatic leadership) and are somewhat influenced by the Kabbalah motion (also discussed earlier).  The Haredi community in Mea Shearim and some of the other Ashkenazi groups still speak Yiddish.  So there are some definite problems in some of the Ultra Orthodox entities. 

 

 

The Zol Po Store 

 

The Northern Jerusalem area of Romema has a significant Ultra Orthodox population.  So they opened their own local super market (or discount store) called Zol Po (“Cheap Here”).

 

And truly, this store (like a similar store in the Ultra Orthodox Bnei Brak community) is much more reasonably priced than other Israeli markets.  Plus, for both secular and religious Jews in Romema, the Zol Po market is much closer than having to go elsewhere in Jerusalem to shop. 

 

Since Zol Po is run by the Ultra Orthodox, all of its merchandise is strictly kosher.  So shoppers can trade there with some confidence in the quality and propriety of the goods purchased.  Also, being Ultra Orthodox, customers are expected to abide by the Ultra Orthodox religious practices affecting men and women. 

 

The Ultra Orthodox Haredi people are a growing segment of the population of Israel generally and Jerusalem particularly (because they tend to have large families).  They number around 4-9% of the total Israeli population; and in Jerusalem, they constitute about 20% of the total population (30% of the Jewish people). 

 

Later chapters will assess how most secular Israelis either hate or at least resent the Ultra Orthodox.  The leftist Jewish press in Israel constantly looks for ways to demean and ridicule the Haredi communities and their religious practices.  Accordingly, the Dec 7, 2001, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 17-19) had a lengthy story by Shoshana Kordova on “With God on their side” which assessed the Zol Po store. 

 

Kordova’s article took the case of a local secular Jewish woman who would like to trade at Zol Po (because of its geographical convenience), but does not do so because of the store’s policy on women.  Women are simply not allowed to enter the store undressed.  They may do this in the Western Christian and secular Jewish cultures, but the Ultra Orthodox will not allow it.  This infuriates the feminists. 

 

The store employs a guard at the store entrance, who checks women to make sure that they are dressed in accordance with the high standards of the Ultra Orthodox.  If secular women show up without being covered (or if wearing slacks or pants) and if they wish to enter Zol Po, they are required to don large wrap-arounds to cover themselves properly. 

 

Secular women who try to enter with a sleeveless dress or without a hair covering are required to don the wrap-arounds which can be used as shawls to cover their hair or arms. 

 

 

The Ultra Orthodox Attitude 

 

The article quoted Ariel Frenkel, a spokesman for the store.  Ariel pointed out that the store primarily serves the local Ultra Orthodox community.  He went on to note that “When a haredi man sees a woman who is not dressed modestly, it disturbs him very much.”  One Haredi woman noted that the Ultra Orthodox are separate (from the secular Jews).  She said, “We don’t want our children to learn from them.” 

 

Menachem Friedman, a sociology professor at Bar Iban University, specializes in a study of the Ultra Orthodox.  He was quoted as saying, “The haredim always wanted to separate themselves; they didn’t want to live with the secular.”  He added that the consistent desire to live apart raises animosity and hostility. 

 

Truly, many secular Israelis (especially Amalekite Ashkenazim) do hate and oppose the Ultra Orthodox (which are often Sephardim, like in the Shas definition).  The differences and conflicts between the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim were briefly acknowledged earlier and will be further addressed in future chapters.  Suffice to say, it is the real world out there in terms of Judaism. 

 

 

Christian Women and the Naked Look 

 

With this Scriptural background, one wonders where the ”uncovered” look comes from where women expose not only their whole heads, but much of their naked bodies as well--as pointed out in previous remarks herein.  Strangely enough, the basis for this uncovered, exposed look is sun worshipping Greeks, as allowed in the former comments. 

 

“The Expositor’s Greek Testament” (v. 2, p.872) reflects that it was Greek women who went about unveiled (assuredly, Shaul’s discussion of a covering for women addressed the “veil” and not just a hat, as noted above) and that Christian women who emancipate themselves from the restraints of dress identify with the Greeks. 

 

This Expositor’s commentary did not elaborate on what was meant by the “restraints” of dress.  But it is patently obvious that the issue was over YHWH’s Old Testament law (on women wearing a veil, shawl or something similar), as observed by religious Jewish women (which was allegedly done away with in Christian eyes). 

 

Suffice to say, sun worshipping Greek women (and men as well) went about bare headed in public and in worship, per their culture and civilization.  Christian women copied and emulated this practice of public exposure from Greek sun worshippers.  In a sense, the modern popularity of women going about and exposing their nakedness is totally traceable to the sun worship culture of ancient Greece. 

 

Naturally, the Roman Empire followed suit and particularly in the sense that the prevailing, Greek, sun worship culture persisted in the Roman Empire after it took over from Greece.  In contrast to the Hebrew culture of Second Temple Judaism, the women in both Greece and Rome were often uncovered and/or naked in public.  There never seemed to be any shame in the sun worship cults over public nudity. 

 

And when the Roman Empire became Christianized, the sun worship practice was already established.  So Christians picked it up.  Should women believers be uncovered in public and in worship?  No way Hose! 

 

 

Shaul’s Words 

 

By the way, Shaul’s dissertation on hair included some remarks for men in the context that they should not be covered as women (I Cor 11:4, 7).  This reference seems to be directed to the situation in Orthodox Jewish synagogues where both men and women worshippers cover themselves (to include their heads) with prayer shawls while worshipping. 

 

Although women correctly should be covered in public or worship (as is properly done in Orthodox synagogues), not so with men.  Men should not be covered, as happens in Orthodox synagogues with the large prayer shawls that cover men’s heads (though the purpose has some merit in the sense of showing humility).  This is the reality of I Corinthians 11:4-7, noted earlier (per Dr David Stern, “Messianic Jewish Manifesto”). 

 

In mentioning this covering, the issue is not about hats, per se, which are perfectly allowable for men in worship.  In fact, priests at the Temple were specifically ordered to wear a mitre (or turban) while officiating in the Temple (Ex 28:4-39; 29:6; 39:28-31). 

 

Again, the practice of going about bareheaded in public and in worship (by both men and women) was a custom of Greek sun worshippers (“A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice,” p. 51). 

 

This allowance of men to wear a hat (or perhaps not wear a hat) would surely extend to a synagogue or meeting place of true worshippers, to include times of prayer.  It is Christian theory (and Greek sun worship), pure and simple, which dictates that men must take their hats off during prayer.  No way did this happen in the Temple or at Jewish synagogues in YESHUA’s day. 

 

 

Women Teaching and Ruling Over Men? 

 

On broaching the matter of women’s liberation and the modern feminist movement (to be discussed in some detail in a later chapter on humanistic feminism), and the reality of women ruling over men in the modern culture, it should be noted that increasingly women are assuming the role of being teachers, instructors, leaders and managers of men. 

 

Tragically, women trying to rule over men are badly out of place.  Simply stated, they genetically were not cut out for leadership roles over men (or over the collective society of men and women).  The MOST HIGH specifically made women to bear children and be domestics at home to take care of the children and home and be an assistant to their husbands (as will be covered in comments to follow). 

 

Because of this confusion in the roles of men and women, not only are marriages breaking up right and left with unhappiness, suicides, divorces and so forth; but in those instances where women do attain rank and authority over men, they become very unhappy, mixed up and subjects of psychological problems. 

 

Too, wherever women in society move up in supervisory roles, things tend to get messed up and incompetence abounds (Isa 3:12; I Pet 3:7).  Women are just not cut out to be bosses of anything; but their children, their homes and/or other women in the proper context (Titus 2:3-5). 

 

One sees this even with women preachers and teachers in the sun worshipping Christian Churches, in addition to the secular society at large.  As discussed in a previous chapter, the Word is quite adamant that in no case can or should women teach men or usurp authority over men (Gen 3:16; I Cor 11:1-15; 14:34-35; I Tim 2:11-15).  This restriction applies to the entire culture--both religious and secular. 

 

Especially, in the Assembly, women should remain in silence and in positions of subjection to men (I Cor 11:1-15; 14:33-35; Eph 5:22-24; I Tim 2:9-12), although they obviously can participate in congregational prayers and singing (yes, per Ezra 2:65, where the Second Temple had both men and women singers). 

 

It goes without saying that women can be and should be teachers of children, and indeed, other women (Titus 2:3-5).  It is also clear that women can help and assist their husbands, as they are teaching men in a private setting (Acts 18:26).  But there is clearly no authority for women to be trying to teach/lead men otherwise.  Scripturally, it seems unthinkable that women would ever try to teach/lead men in a public forum. 

 

Therefore, it is out of the question to allow women to hold public offices over men.  Finally, the Scriptural evidence should be sufficient proof that women, in general, are manifestly unqualified to be voting in elections to decide important issues (although it is true that some women have far more brains, intelligence, honesty and integrity than some men who vote). 

 

 

Demonic Influence   

 

As briefly touched upon in prior comments, women are very susceptible to adverse demonic spirits (as proven in Genesis 3, where the woman was chosen first by Satan to succumb to his evil spiritual powers). 

 

Consequently, women are simply not reliable in leadership roles.  For some reason, which probably goes back to the creation and the first sin, women have unique spiritual qualities which give them a pronounced aura (which can extend three feet or so from women versus just a few inches for men, as now known from Kirlian photography).  Thus, women are the leaders in the occult and spiritualism fields. 

 

For some reason, women are more emotional and less stable in an emergency.  They simply are weaker than men (I Pet 3:7).  Possibly, their spiritual qualities and their openness to demonic powers combine to raise real questions about them acting in leadership roles at large over YHWH’s people.  The MOST HIGH deals with this question by simply prohibiting them from exercising authority over men. 

 

 

The Gender Pattern 

 

From the very first chapter of Genesis forward, the pattern for the male-female relationship has been laid out for all of eternity.  The Adam man was given dominion over the entire creation--including woman (Gen 1:26).  The woman was specifically created to be a helper to man (Gen 2:18-25), to be in subjection to him (Gen 3:16; Eph 5:22-23; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5) and to reverence him (Eph 5:33). 

 

In return for this obedience and reverence, the man is charged to love his wife and to provide for her and protect her (Eph 5:33; Col 3:19; I Pet 3:7).  The Book details the instructions needed for a good wife (Prov 31:10-25; I Tim 5:2-14; Titus 2:3-5).  And as mentioned earlier, and to be covered again later, the wife must learn true humility and meekness--which become the describing features of a good woman. 

 

 

The Modern Curse 

 

Significantly, the Scriptures describe a coming time in the House of Yisrael when children would be oppressors of the Israelites and where women would rule over the men to cause them to err and destroy their (proper) paths (Isa 3:12).  Assuredly, the modern House of Yisrael nations have reached that pathetic time, as foretold by Yeshayahu.  This time will be further addressed in a later chapter on humanism and gender. 

 

This elevation of women into rulership started first in the political arena when women were given the right to vote (once this happened, it opened the door to much of the social and cultural sickness that has arisen in Washington in the 20th and early 21st centuries). 

 

In the post WWII era, feminism gained popularity; and now, the whole society has deteriorated into social and moral depravity as women gained authority in political, government, economic, social and cultural activities.  Even in religion (in Christendom and non-Orthodox Judaism), women have even moved into leadership roles to cause enormous problems. 

 

It is inconceivable to this writer that Christians, who have built their entire faith on the NT, and particularly a few words from the Apostle Shaul, in the context of having the law abolished forever, can otherwise ignore the plain words of Shaul on the role of women and insist that it is perfectly all right for women to speak out and have leadership roles in their sun worship churches. 

 

Surely, any honest person familiar with the New Testament and cognizant of Shaul’s very plain and precise instructions must conclude that many, many Christians are plainly false hypocrites for allowing women to head up, lead and speak out (to include Holy Roller gibberish) in their religious meetings. 

 

 

Exceptions? 

 

With these comments on the subjugation of women, the question must inevitably come up with the prophetess Deborah who judged Yisrael for forty years (Jud 5:31).  Her situation was discussed in a prior chapter in the context of her prophecies.  Evidently, she was raised up by YHWH because the contemporary men had shortcomings or were weak in various ways, thus necessitating her choice. 

 

Too, the designation of Deborah by YHWH may have been predicated to some extent  upon His desire to humiliate and shame the evil Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army opposing Yisrael.  As the “Soncino Books of the Bible” indicate (v. II, p. 188), the context is clear in Judges 4:9 that Deborah was the woman chosen to embarrass Sisera, and not the later Jael who killed him (Jud 4:21). 

 

Manifestly, Deborah’s work is cast in the Word in conjunction with her colleague Barak, who obviously was encouraged and prompted by Deborah to do his job of actually leading Yisrael.  It is a certainty that it was Barak out front and publicly leading Yisrael’s army against Sisera and even when Deborah went with him to encourage him (Jud 4:10). 

 

It’s very doubtful that she publicly exercised any authority over men or collective Yisrael.  Whatever she had for the people (from YHWH) most likely was passed to Barak in the privacy of her home and he gave it to the people (Jud 4:6, 14).  Even her judging was apparently done in the privacy of her home and while she was properly covered (Jud 4:4-5). 

 

This background on Deborah probably also applies to any queens to later serve over the House of Yisrael nations in the last 2,500 years--to the extent that their ordination and rule can be properly justified and allowed, per the Scriptures.  Surely, a woman descendant from David, who correctly assumes the throne, can work through men ministers and leaders from behind the scenes to fulfill righteousness. 

 

 

The Western Wall, Revisited 

 

In another matter, the “Jerusalem Post” of December 21, 1996, reported that posters at the Western Wailing Wall (Temple Mount area of Jerusalem) note that Judaism does not condone sexual harassment and that an immodestly dressed woman who prays aloud near a man is guilty of harassing him. 

 

Certainly, these signs at the Wailing Wall and at Mea Shearim (discussed above) have some very appropriate instructions worth contemplation and study.  The Scriptures are quite plain on this subject and cannot be readily mistaken.  Women are supposed to be covered in worship and when appearing in public--beyond their personal husbands and immediate families (and a small hat or doily is not a covering). 

 

The praying aloud issue at the Western Wall is also most profound to think about.  Orthodox Jews consider the Western Wall to be a synagogue.  Accordingly, the people praying there must conform to Orthodox rules for the synagogue--which do not allow women to publicly preach, teach, speak, pray aloud or otherwise improperly exhibit themselves in worship services (which is what the Apostle Shaul taught as well). 

 

In the context of their segregated section at the Wall, some Jewish women (especially, the feminists and others, who are members of the other Jewish orders) have advocated the right to not only pray out loud, but to read the Torah at the Wall (in the women’s section).  Orthodox authorities have always said no.  But some women have become vocal and have pressed the issue. 

 

Israeli authorities have resisted these efforts by women.  The latest move is that the Knesset is in the process of passing a bill which will make it illegal for a woman to wear a tallith or tefillin, to blow a shofar or to read the Torah publicly at the Western Wall (Jun 9, 2000, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 5).  Israeli authorities are serious about this option--because the punishment for violating this law is seven years in prison. 

 

It must be noted that while Grecian sun worship practices (like women being uncovered and publicly vocal) took over Christianity, Orthodox Judaism has resisted these practices over the years.  But the pressure has been on Judaism to change its ideas on the role of women both in public and in worship.  So far, Torah believing Jews have resisted this pressure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 246--More on Sun Worship Men and Women

 

 

Humble in Appearances 

 

Importantly, the Scriptures do teach and advocate some modesty and humility in dress and appearance for women, in particular, and indeed, in all people in general--in contrast to the pride and vanity normally affecting all of us (Matt 23:5; I Tim 2:9-10; I Pet 3:1-5). 

 

 

Cosmetics 

 

Obviously, make-up, cosmetics, lipsticks, hair dyes, etc. are all contrary to the Scriptures since they represent a lie and an attempt to deceive others as to one’s true looks (Ex 20:16; Prov 14:5, 25; Rev 22:15).  In the Book, it is women of bad repute (generally whores and sun worshippers) who wear cosmetics. 

 

The famous or infamous Jezebel--the Edomite woman who was involved in Witchcraft and idolatrous sun worship (I Kg 16:29-31; II Kg 9:22; Rev 2:20) and the very clear prototype of Hillary Clinton--painted her face (II Kg 9:30).  Here, the English word painted comes from the Hebrew “pooch.” 

 

This same word is used in Jeremiah 4:30 in that the House of Yehudah used paint or make-up in her harlotries.  Yehudah also received condemnation from Yechezkel for painting her eyes (Ezek 23:40).  The “paintedst” here is from the Hebrew “kahghal,” which means “to paint the eyes with stibium” (per “The Old Testament Word Studies”).  Stibium was an eye make-up or the mascara of those days. 

 

Isaiah 3:16 has a condemnation upon the women who have wanton eyes (as the KJV has it).  Here, the wanton eyes refers to the fact of falsely setting off the eyes with paint (per Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s “Commentary on the Whole Bible”). 

 

Clearly, cosmetics and make-up are not for humble women who are trying to please The ELOHIM.  After all, truly beautiful women or handsome men do not need make-up to alter their appearances.  It is only people who are wanting to live a lie and deception who seek out make-up to try to change their appearance and fool others about their true reality. 

 

Incidentally, after Iyov’s trial, he came to have three daughters (Job 42:13-15).  One of them was named “Karen-happuch.”  The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s “Commentary on the Whole Bible” says that this name means “born of stibium suggesting the (natural) beauty of this girl.” 

 

 

Cosmetic Surgery 

 

On this theme, there is still one more aspect of the question which needs mention.  Along with cosmetics, some people have chosen to have cosmetic surgery to alter their appearance.  In 1983, the Miss Texas entered in the Miss America contest admitted that she had had cosmetic surgery to fix her nose.  Evil Amalekites are known to do this to get rid of their Hittite noses. 

 

The popular Negro rock star and pervert Michael Jackson has had a nose job to get rid of his very pronounced Negro nose and replace it with a more Caucasian type of nose.  He is also known to bleach his skin or use other agents to try to make himself appear white instead of his common black color. 

 

Obviously, all of these attempts to alter one’s appearance fall into the same category.  They have to be wrong!  The same reasoning must extend to people who use hair dies, peroxide or other agents to try to alter their appearance. 

 

Some years ago, this writer lived and worked on Saipan Island in the North Pacific, as noted earlier herein.  One of my acquaintances was a much-older, gray-haired, Chamorro man.  At that time, to me, he was truly an old man. 

 

His wife died.  And soon, he started dying his hair coal black to try to look like he did when he was a young man (the reasons for this deception are quite manifest--he had started dating and was looking for another wife). 

 

The tragedy for him was that he truly was an old man.  He could die his hair, but the wrinkles and age still showed through in his face.  It’s amazing what man will do for pride reasons (Deut 32:21; Ps 39:11; 62:9; Eccl 1:2; 2:1-21; Phil 2:3). 

 

 

Perfume

 

Along with the quest to look pretty or young or whatever (that prompts people to try to alter their appearances), one must also take note of the extensive uses of perfume, ointments, cologne and good smelling chemicals.  It appears that these agents are probably in a different category and certainly for women. 

 

At least, in the Book, they seem to be favorably used (Ex 30:34-37; Ru 3:3; Est 2:12; Ps 133:1-2; Prov 27:9; Matt 6:17).  In the Song of Songs, YESHUA’s bride uses perfume (SofS 1:13).  And even the Bridegroom, Himself, uses myrrh and frankincense (SofS 3:6).  At His death, the disciples obtained ointments to embalm YESHUA (Mk 16:1). 

 

Obviously, common sense, respect and decorum toward others would suggest the occasional use of toiletries to eliminate or diminish the presence of offensive body odors.  Surely, the offensive smell of Negroes dictates that Black people use quantities of this stuff (as many of them do, as a matter of fact). 

 

But even when some of these agents can be and should be used, there is no allowance in YHWH’s Word for a person to try to smell like a French whore or male prostitute.  In all cases, YHWH’s people must use some discretion and care to try to be humble in appearance (as was cited in the above comments).  Surely, women, of all people, must seek humility (I Pet 3:1-6). 

 

 

Jewelry and Precious Stones 

 

This mention of humility brings up the need to briefly discuss jewelry.  Although the modern Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) denomination is much opposed to jewelry (except for some functional jewelry, like a watch), the Torah does not have a restriction upon it, per se.  Certainly, precious stones and jewelry are mentioned often in the Word and generally in a favorable manner. 

 

The breastplate worn by the high priest used precious stones to communicate YHWH’s will for Yisrael (Ex 28:17-20; 39:10-13), and jewelry was even used for an offering to YHWH (Ex 35:22).   The Israelites at the time of the Exodus and later wore jewelry and there never seemed to be any condemnation of those practices at that time (Ex 32:2-3; 33:4; II Sam 1:24-27). 

 

Yehudah wore a bracelet and a signet/ring (Gen 38:18), and the ancient King Shaul wore a bracelet (II Sam 1:10).  Clearly, Rebekah wore nose and finger rings (Gen 24:22, 30, 47, 53), and the righteous Yosef had a signet ring and necklace (Gen 41:42).  Daniel was given a gold chain to wear around his neck (Dan 5:29).  Both Mordacai and the prodigal son were given rings (Est 8:2; Lu 15:22). 

 

The wise Shlomo compared the instructions of parents to ornaments of gold (Prov 1:9; 25:12).  YHWH blessed Iyov with an earring of gold (Job 42:11-12), and went on to make Zerubbabel a signet (Hag 2:23).  In fact, The HIGHEST even symbolically identified jewelry as a good thing (Mal 3:17; Matt 7:6). 

 

Historically, brides were always appropriately adorned for their weddings (Isa 61:10; Jer 2:32; Rev 21:2).  And importantly, this is the proper Scriptural position.  YHWH YESHUA’s bride will be adorned with some jewelry (SofS 1:10-11; Ezek 16:1-14; Rev 21:2, 10-21). 

 

If YHWH adorns His Own bride with precious stones and jewelry, the SDA people are hard pressed to oppose the practice (though they try to use some criticism from Yeshayahu, Shaul and Kefa to forbid the stuff).  

 

 

The Problem 

 

With this background, what is the problem with precious stones and jewelry?  Despite the clear authorization of appropriate jewelry on proper occasions (particularly with women), there are a few complaints which must be acknowledged. 

 

First, it is evident that jewelry has historically had links with women more than men.  In fact, it would seem that it is wrong for men to wear excessive, prominent jewelry (like the pianist Liberace used to wear), as opposed to some of it being possibly worn on right occasions by women.  It’s like wearing a dress.  It seems proper for a woman, but it is condemned for a man. 

 

Next, jewelry often includes pagan signs and symbols--all the way from Christian crosses to ankhs to pentagrams and on and on.  Many of these things were condemned by Yisrael’s prophets--like the little suns or star disc pendants of Isaiah 3:18.  Some of these items were worn as amulets, so-called good luck charms or magical fetishes. 

 

As a minimum, many of them became idolatrous images (like the Christian crosses).  Obviously, all of this stuff is wrong.  No wonder the prophets condemned the practice so sharply. 

 

There is one final major condemnation of jewelry, in some instances.  As Yeshayahu wrote it (Isa 3:16-23), the issue can really be one of pride and vanity (also mentioned in I Peter 3:3).  This is one of the fallouts of owning and using jewelry and precious stones.  It puffs people up and makes them proud.  As discussed in former chapters, all forms of pride are to be condemned. 

 

 

The Condemnations and the SDA People 

 

Thus, it is no wonder that Yeshayahu (Isa 3:16-23) wrote his condemnation about the daughters of Zion for their use of jewelry and even clothing and apparel for pride purposes.  Yet, the SDA people seize upon this reference and similar ones to oppose jewelry (as outlined at Gen 35:1-4; I Tim 2:9-10; I Pet 1-4; Rev 17:4). 

 

It is too bad, but some uninformed SDA leaders have latched onto these condemnations about pride, idols and magic charms (all of which are admittedly wrong) to condemn jewelry.  Since the SDA people use these texts to oppose jewelry, why don’t they use them to also condemn clothing and dress as well. 

 

This writer has had some contact with the SDA people over the last 30 years.  It often has amazed me that they could be so strict and serious over the question of jewelry, but roll in gross sin otherwise. 

 

For example, the SDA women would never wear any jewelry, but many of them have no qualms at all over wearing short or tight-fitting dresses to show their bottoms and much of their sexual equipment.  This is simply not YHWH’s way!  Why can’t Adventists put things into the right perspective and deal with the sin issue and not some irrelevant point. 

 

 

Ralph Woodrow, Revisited 

 

Incidentally, Christian writer Ralph Woodrow (in his work on “Should Women Wear Jewelry?”) commented upon I Timothy 2:9-10 and I Peter 3:3-4 (as used by the SDA people).  Woodrow quoted the “Pulpit Commentary” which outlined a familiar Hebrew idiom where a first clause in a text has to be understood in the vein of “only” while the second clause in the text is in consideration of “also or rather.” 

 

In other words, the second clause further defines and limits the applicability of the first clause.  Woodrow gave these texts as illustrations--Genesis 45:8; Exodus 16:8; John 6:27; and Acts 5:4. 

 

Therefore, in Genesis 45:8, it was not (only) Yosef’s brothers who were responsible for Yosef’s slavery, but (also) The ELOHIM.  In Exodus 16:8, the murmurings of the Israelites were not against Moshe and Aaron (only), but against YHWH (also). 

 

The remarks from I Timothy and I Peter used by the Adventists seem to fit into this same category.  In that sense, Woodrow interprets them as:  “...whose adoring let it not be (only) that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel, but (also, rather) let it be the... ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.” 

 

The conclusion seems to be that the issue of these texts is not on the jewelry, clothing, etc.  But rather, the concern is over the resulting pride and vanity arising because of the jewelry and clothing. 

 

There is still some more fallout from these verses.  In Apostolic times, when the Greek sun worship culture persevered in much of the Roman Empire, the heathen women had a practice of interweaving costly and expensive jewelry into their braided and plaited hair.  As was discussed in preceding chapters, they went about bareheaded (actually to show this pride and vanity off). 

 

Conversely, the women followers of YESHUA covered their long hair (I Cor 11:5-6, as was discussed in previous comments) to effectively hide and cover up their possible source of pride.  After all, these truly religious women adorned themselves by being in subjection to their husbands and not by expensive jewelry (I Pet 3:5-6).  The point made by both Kefa and Shaul was to condemn pride and not jewelry, per se. 

 

 

More on Jewelry 

 

Consequently, another remark is called for.  Maybe jewelry is a lot like honey.  Used in moderation and on the right occasion, it might be allowable.  Thus, maybe a woman can be adorned in some jewelry and precious stones for her wedding day.  Maybe, for the Sabbath, and in the presence and privacy of her family, a woman perhaps can wear some of her jewelry. 

 

But it would be out of the question for a woman of faith to put much of this stuff on to walk down the street in public--like the daughters of Zion or a modern, proud whore.  Wearing excessive and/or flashy jewelry has to be a very questionable practice.  It seems doubtful for a woman to appear properly in public with much visible jewelry. Above all else, a woman must work at being humble. 

 

And in the sense of men wearing jewelry, the believing male must exercise even more care, concern and prudence than a woman for the reasons discussed above (yes, men should not wear that which pertains to a woman.  Jewelry is largely something for women). 

 

Certainly, a man or a woman might correctly use some functional jewelry most of the time (like a watch).  But anything excessive, pagan in nature (as so much of it is) and which might generate pride must be avoided. 

 

A simple wedding ring seems to have some functional value and especially for a woman (because it shows that she is bound to a man).  Some persons have suggested that wedding bands represent pagan practices.  And if so, questions must be raised about them (though this writer has not yet been able to substantiate this charge). 

 

However, it appears that Scripturally there is likely some allowance for rings (which may possibly include small, inconspicuous, wedding bands).  Certainly, the issues of moderation, simplification and using nothing flashy or excessive would apply here on rings. 

 

This writer has a small silver bracelet which is sometimes worn on my lower, left arm upon leaving my house (under a long shirt sleeve, so it is rarely visible to anyone).  It has inscribed on it Deuteronomy 6:5, in compliance with the mitzwah at Deuteronomy 6:8.  So there is no question in my mind over its validity.  For me, it is no fetish or idol. 

 

 

II John 1:9-11 

 

A previous chapter indicated that a person can look upon another person and gain some information about that person’s beliefs, based simply upon his or her physical appearance.  This doesn’t mean that one can judge entirely by appearance.  But this is a starting place.  Of course, it ultimately will take some involved discussion to ascertain the totality of another’s belief system. 

 

Perhaps this reality of being able to make some judgments about a person, based simply on his or her appearance, might be the basis of the charge in II John 1:9-11, where the true believer must make a quick judgment about a person who comes to his door pretending to be a fellow believer. 

 

Yohanan says that if someone comes to you without the right teachings of The EL and YESHUA to not even invite him into your house or welcome him.  So, how can one quickly determine that a stranger has the right teaching, without a lengthy discussion and cross examination? 

 

The answer is easy in the first instance--by his or her physical appearance.  Does a man have a beard, short hair on top, dressed properly (as a man) and with no improper nakedness.  Is he a behemah/nokri or an Israelite/ger?  For a woman, is she properly covered/veiled?  Is she fully clothed as a woman with no nakedness?  These are simple issues which can readily be determined at a first glance. 

 

The presence of phylacteries and tzitzityot (discussed earlier) would be a strong plus in making a determination of the faith and belief of a person knocking at one’s door.  An Adamic man fully clothed, with a beard and wearing phylacteries and tzitzityot would immediately suggest a man complying at least with the outward appearances of a believer (as would be needed to make a quick judgment of faith). 

 

Surely, a behemah, chaiyah or nokri would raise a question (Ps 147:19-20). Too, a clean shaven man who was not properly dressed and without tzitzityot and phylacteries (if that question can be determined) would suggest a non-believer and someone on the order of a sun worshipping Greek/Christian.  In terms of a religious discussion, there would be no reason to welcome such a person into your house. 

 

 

Necklaces? 

 

In an article on “Did Early Christians Wear Necklaces?,” by Dr Ike Tennison, in the No. 10, 1999, issue of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 1), the point was made that maybe early Christians wore necklaces, made up of the teachings of YESHUA (or their Gee-Zeus).  Tennison said that there was a find of a 6th century “Christian amulet” in Heracleopolis Magna which consisted of a small papyrus roll pressed together as a necklace. 

 

Apparently, these rolls with NT or other quotations were worn around the necks of some early Christians as a type of amulet, fetish or good luck charm.  Tennison asks if these necklaces were commonly worn so that their appearance might suggest a fellow Christian at once to another Christian. 

 

 

The Requirements of the Torah 

 

Certainly, the Word commands the wearing of a beard and something on the order of a tallith or otherwise a garment with a fringe/tassels (tzitzityot) on it and something close to phylacteries and/or tefillin on the arm and forehead, as discussed earlier herein for a man (Ex 13:1-16; Num 15:37-40; Deut 6:4-9; 22:12; Matt 9:20; 14:36). 

 

The presence of these items can sometimes be judged based upon simple appearance--though sometimes, the tzitzityot and phylacteries will not be readily seen, as they can be incorporated into the clothing or a hat in a manner to conceal their presence (that may be done in the present, Christian, sun worship society which would oppose these items and create conflict, contempt and ridicule). 

 

However, the good intentions of the so-called Christian, who wears a necklace made up of NT teachings, will fall short on this goal--since it does not meet the words of the Torah, outlined above.  Therefore, such Christian necklaces would never begin to qualify a person as a true believer. 

 

Because Christianity is such a pagan, sun worship religion, it is plausible that early Christians cooked up a scheme to wear such necklaces on the premise of a fetish or magic charm to ward off evil.  Thus, the practice might be one by early Christians.  But it is totally unscriptural.  So therefore, it would have to be called into question--at least, in the sense that it might be an amulet (which would be condemned). 

 

The tzitzityot, phylacteries and/or tefillin on the forehead are not works of magic or good luck charms.  These items are commanded in the Torah.  They represent the wisdom of YHWH.  Manifestly, they constitute righteousness and good by YHWH’s Torah and cannot ever be condemned by people of truth. 

 

Beyond the very obvious determinations, which can be made immediately about a person based upon a quick, physical perusal of his appearance, there are other questions of faith and belief that can only be ascertained upon conversation which might take some time to ascertain. 

 

 

The Role of Women Generally 

 

Previous remarks herein have focused some on the role of women in the context of the synagogue and culture.  A subsequent chapter on humanism and the gender problem will also assess the role of women from the standpoint of working and mixing with men in the contemporary culture.  There is no need to repeat that material at this juncture. 

 

Suffice to say, men and women are supposed to be separated or segregated in the Scripturally correct culture as much as possible (as noted earlier). 

 

Manifestly, women should not be in the work-force; but rather, should be at the home having babies (Gen 3:16) and taking care of the children, the family and the home.  Of course, some women may not have a man to provide for them and be forced by circumstances into the work place in order to live (Ruth was in this condition when she gleaned in the fields--Ru 2:2). 

 

Also, this was possibly the situation with Lydia, the seller of purple from Thyatira.  Shaul met her in Philippi and she became a believer (Acts 16:14-15).  Apparently, she was a woman of some means with a household.  But it is unclear whether her property came from her own work or from a deceased husband (if she was a widow as was likely). 

 

Regardless, one can be sure that Lydia was a humble woman and one who was careful to be covered in the presence of men in her sales work.  While the Book is unclear on Lydia’s work procedures, it is possible that her customers were primarily women and not men at all. 

 

She may have had a shop or perhaps a stall or place to sell her wares from the street, but in an area with other women merchants with goods appealing to women customers. 

 

Manifestly, woman was created to be a helpmate/assistant to man (Gen 2:18).  Yet, this reality has been completely twisted in the modern Christian culture.  “Petah Tikvah” is a very good Messianic Jewish quarterly, published from Rochester, NY.  For years, the lead page has listed the Editor and then his wife as Director.  The Apr-Jun 2001 issue (p. 2) listed him as Editor and her as “Helpmate.”  This is the way it should be! 

 

 

Moral Accountability 

 

Some further remarks are now needed on the status of women in the context of moral responsibility.  In the generic sense, the Torah does outline that women carry the same moral responsibilities as men.  Like men, women can sin and could be executed in the flesh for sin (Lev 20:10-11, 17-18; Deut 17:2, 5; 29:17-18), as well as facing eternal death (Ezek 18:4). 

 

Despite this moral accountability, many of the positive commandments in the Torah are specifically directed at men--like the requirement for the three annual pilgrimages to Jerusalem (Ex 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16).  Even the great Seventh day Sabbath command does not mention the wife, per se (Ex 20:10). 

 

Perhaps it is these precedents which make the historic Jewish position be that women generally were exempt from positive precepts (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 16, p. 626).  If there were any positive commands applicable to women, it certainly was in the requirement for both men and women to confess certain sins against brethren--like failing to perform an oath (Num 5:6-7). 

 

Obviously, women were not allowed into the inner portions of the Temple where sacrifices were made.  Consequently, it would seem that women never offered any sacrifices for sin.  Any offerings they made were likely handled by the priests or their menfolk (i.e. Lev 15:14, 30). 

 

 

The Woman’s Subjection 

 

Perhaps there are good reasons for this cited implication on sacrifices.  A woman’s life was pretty well subject to her father or later husband.  In fact, she could not even make a religious vow, unless her father or husband effectively approved of it (Num 30:4-16).  In that sense, her physical safety was in the hands of her man (father or husband, as appropriate). 

 

As discussed in a prior chapter on Philadelphia, it might well be that some of the women present in this very elect group are somehow dependent upon the choice of their menfolk.  Since the woman by YAH’s law was automatically subservient to her man, it is clear that a man has a moral duty and responsibility for his woman, just as he has similar duties and obligations for his children in the generic sense. 

 

Thus, man has a duty to be a responsible leader, priest and headmaster of his household.  If he fails in his tasks, then the future of his family is put into jeopardy.  Hence, it isn’t only that the husband may bring hurt and punishment on himself, but he may bring it upon his whole family.  This brings up the need for a woman to be blessed with a good husband (and a man to be blessed with a good wife). 

 

While the Scriptures do place the woman in a subordinate position to her man, this manifestly does not give a husband any right or authority to abuse, hurt or oppress his woman.  It is sin if a man takes advantage of his position over his wife to improperly hurt her in any respect. 

 

For sure, a man must use his head on this matter and conform to YHWH’s Torah (in love) in his dealings with his wife (and especially if she is submissive as she should be). 

 

If a man is out of work, disabled, sick, lazy or otherwise unemployed while the wife is out of the home, working to support him (as happens in the modern mixed up world), he must be very careful if he gets it in his head that he can run over her like she was a household puppy dog. 

 

Obviously, if the wife is the bread-winner in the family (for whatever reason--whether good or bad), the husband needs to back off in some on his rulership prerogatives and give her some input and latitude and more so than perhaps would otherwise be due. 

 

Surely, such a man must be careful about trying to control all of the money she makes and taking unscriptural stands to  boss her around and abuse her like she was a dog or a slave.  By all means, a husband must love his wife and be cognizant of her needs, as the Book declares! 

 

 

The Abuse of Women 

 

Preceding chapters discussed some of the laws or edicts in place in certain Muslim and Jewish circles to maintain a degree of separation of the sexes.  In general, this separation is a good thing and is totally and completely Scriptural.  Therefore, far be it from this writer to attempt to criticize or condemn it in any fashion.

 

Manifestly, some of the previously cited restrictions on women are certainly good and carry enormous Scriptural support (as established earlier). 

 

However, it is a fact of life that in some cultures, women are exposed to great hurt, harm, injury, abuse, mistreatment and oppression from their men--which is totally and completely wrong (and sin).  The following presentation will outline some of the horrors that can and does come upon vulnerable women and women, in particular, among the various Colored peoples over planet earth. 

 

Tragically, women actually suffer much abuse, hurt and mistreatment overall in virtually the entire Colored world and among Colored peoples in general.  This condition will be described and commented upon at length in later chapters.  Suffice to say, here, it is the real world. 

 

Several Colored cultures have dreamed up all kinds of schemes to put enormous pain and grief upon their women.  Horrible circumcision of Black girls is done in some parts of Africa (by excising the clitoris--so the women won’t enjoy sex).  Despite the efforts of White Colonial governments and missionaries to try to stop this practice over the years, it has continued (May 10, 2002, “The Week,” p. 13). 

 

The Chinese used to bind and wrap the feet of small girls and make them wear small shoes (to try to keep their feet small).  They could never take the bindings off, as it would hurt their feet. 

 

Some Blacks and Burmese start putting large, heavy rings around the necks of their small girls.  As the girls grow, more rings are added until they have a row of them by adulthood to stretch their necks long. 

 

The poor women must then wear the rings to protect their necks and heads (because their necks are so stretched that they will snap off if the rings are removed).  This custom exists so that other men won’t want the women. 

 

Some African tribes place cups, saucers or plates into the lips of their women to make them grow out from their heads in a grotesque manner.  And by all means, Black men regularly beat and injure their women without much provocation at all. 

 

In the early American Indian culture (which the modern liberals and feminists love so much), women were almost on the slave level (in fact, many were slaves because the tribes practiced slavery).  Indian men often had several wives and the women did virtually all of the physical work associated with survival (beyond hunting game). 

 

When traveling, pregnant Indian women, ready to give birth, went off by themselves and had their babies alone and without help or assistance.  They either learned how to handle this ordeal or they were dead with no concern, help or support from their men. 

 

 

Little or No Help for Women 

 

As noted in preceding remarks on the Taliban in Afghanistan, the religion of Islam has not helped the plight of women in Colored nations and among Colored people. 

 

The Nov 2002 “End Time News” (p. 3) pointed out that the Koran provides that a Muslim husband can beat his wife or refuse to share the bed with her if he suspects her of disloyalty or ill-conduct (Surah 4:34).  Apparently, it does not take much of a provocation and a Muslim can beat his woman without restraint. 

 

Consequently, Colored men are notorious for beating, abusing, hurting and even injuring their women.  That’s just the way the Colored mind functions. 

 

It’s just not a good thing for a woman (any woman--White, Black, Red, Yellow, Pink or Green) to be ruled over by Colored men (and on this, it does not matter whether the Colored male is a Christian, Muslim, atheist or what; or where the Colored man and his wife live geographically--the results are almost always the same). 

 

The same reality is true with animal pets in most Colored households which also suffer great abuse under Colored masters (as noted elsewhere herein, Koreans and perhaps some other Asians skin their animals alive before killing them to eat).  That’s just the facts of life.  There is simply no reason to try to hide it or pretend that it doesn’t exist. 

 

The above stated condition of women and animals among Colored peoples is the real world out there--contrary to the gullibility and ignorance of White people. 

 

 

The Pecking Order Among Animals 

 

Just as behemah humanoids are so prone to beat and oppress their women (and indeed, each other, as they work to establish the pecking order), it is most fascinating that other animals likewise typically establish a pecking order to abuse each other. 

 

Once the pecking order is established in any animal grouping, it is usually routine that the number one boss in the hierarchy (usually the dominant male) gets to breed most of the opposite sex and gets to eat first whenever food is available.  That’s just the way the game is played among animals. 

 

This writer has a neighbor who owns an old gelding horse and three mules.  In the summer, they range in a large field with a mare who belongs to another neighbor.  Seemingly, they get along all right by grazing together in this open field.  In the winter, my neighbor pens up his horse and mules and feeds them hay.  Frequently, this writer feeds these penned up animals. 

 

In the late fall of 2002, my neighbor penned up the old horse and one mule (the other mules were being used for packing).  He also penned up the mare (perhaps because of an agreement with the mare’s owner).  One day, this writer went and got a bail of hay to feed the horse, mare and one mule.  As soon as the hay was dropped in a container for them, they all jointly approached the feed. 

 

But the horse snipped at (bit) the mare and chased her off.  He wouldn’t let her eat and share in his food.  There was more than enough hay.  Surely, as soon as he was full, he must have let her have any remaining hay.  Tragically, this is the way the game is played among animals. 

 

The behemah humanoids are in the same category.  Male behemah humanoids simply have no compassion, care or concern for their women or for each other in the context of the pecking order. 

 

 

A Revisit to Some Earlier Cited People 

 

Preceding chapters, discussing man, have outlined the strange correlation between the actions and mentality of acknowledged Blacks (that is people who hold themselves out as Africans or who are physically recognized as Negroes) and even so-called White people who just happen to have some evident Negro genes (while under the Scriptural ten-generation rule, as discussed earlier). 

 

Many of these so-called Whites, with noticeable Black genes, either act like or think like Blacks.  A former chapter noted a so-called White man with B blood.  Mentally and in attitude, this man was much like his Negro ancestor.  Another case was cited of a family where a reasonably White women was married to a supposedly White man (but one with some noticeable presence of Black genes). 

 

The woman was a good woman and worked hard to try to help him and support him in his old age (both were elderly people in their late 70s).  While the man had a disability and could logically expect some help from his woman, there was still more to it.  The man became grossly lazy and expected his woman to do almost everything for him. 

 

Never once did it appear that he was concerned about her welfare or needs.  Though she had some health problems of her own (as cited in the previous remarks on this couple), it was of little concern to him as long as she worked to take care of him and their household. 

 

If she worked herself to death because of having to take care of him and their home, it always seemed like he was unconcerned.  Their children with the more obvious Black genes were of the same disposition.  They simply were unconcerned about their mother.  The son with the White genes of his mother was more responsible and seemed to exhibit more care for his parents than the other siblings. 

 

The house was large and with the father doing nothing but needing attention, the woman had her hands full (plus the couple’s children often visited; and as always, mom had to wait upon them as well as dad).  It just seemed that this man or his children should have insisted on hiring a maid for one day a week to at least come in and do some of the heavy house-cleaning chores and perhaps the washing of clothes. 

 

But no, the family could have cared less about her state of health and needs.  In general, the children (except for possibly the one more-Adamic boy) was much like dad (with his array of behemah genes).  They were too selfish, irresponsible and unconcerned to worry about the mother--although a part-time maid was eventually hired when the woman became virtually bedfast. 

 

 

But Conversely 

 

Historically, White Western men have always deferred to their women in terms of courtesy, respect and treatment.  Contrast this profile with the Colored Third World where women have been historically treated like dirt.  Black African men (and men in general, with heavy Black genes) have always mistreated, abused and hurt their women--both physically and mentally (as mentioned above and in earlier chapters). 

 

In Judaism, women are treated with kindness and compassion (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 16, p. 627) and the  Hasidim give their women the position of honor (v. 16, p. 628).  Despite this respect shown women, historic Judaism has had an ancient man’s daily prayer which offered thanks to The ELOHIM for the man not being made a woman (ibid, v. 16, p. 626). 

 

White American men used to watch their language in the presence of women.  They got up to meet women.  They offered women seats, help and encouragement.  And whenever possible, men deferred to and showed honor and respect to women. 

 

There was a day and even in America when it was unthinkable for men to cuss or use profanity or vulgarity in front of women.  This subject was so important in the male dominated society that laws were on the books to enforce and protect the dignity of women (and children). 

 

The April 2, 2002, “Idaho Spokesman-Review” (p. !3) had a news report from Traverse City, Michigan which said that a state appeals court had struck down a 105-year old Michigan law which prohibited the use of vulgar speech in front of women and children. 

 

The law said that anyone using “indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”  The court said that the law was unconstitutional and that it was “difficult to conceive of a statute that would be more vague.”  Obviously, this court simply could not read and understand black and white statements that were clear to morons. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 247--Sun Worship and Marriage

 

 

Marriage Per YHWH 

 

Marriage is one of the three most important things which a person will do in this life (the others are birth and death).  One of the primary issues in a marriage is that it be legal by YHWH’s Word.  If the supposed or ceremonial marriage is illegal by YAH’s Word, there is no true marriage. 

 

If the marriage involves a Scripturally illegal act (but which may be legal and approved in the secular state), then surely the marriage must terminate and cease.  It cannot continue with the resulting sin.  The problem is that human marriage laws do not properly mesh and conform to The ELOHIM’s Torah.  This brings up the Scriptural option of divorce, to be discussed in some detail in the succeeding chapter. 

 

If the marriage involves incest, it is illegal (Lev 18:6-17; 20:11-14, 17, 19-21; Deut 22:30; 27:20, 22-23; I Cor 5:1).  Obviously, homosexual marriages are illegal (Jude 7)! 

 

If the woman marries on the premise that she is a virgin; when, in fact, she is not, it is illegal (Deut 22:13-21; Matt 1:18-24; 19:7-9).  Clearly, the man facing this question cannot delay on applying this law.  In other words, in fairness, he must apply the law when the truth is revealed and not delay it to some future time and situation.  

 

In the main, Israelites can only marry fellow Israelites (or legal ger converts) because Genesis 1:11-31 sets forth YHWH’s principle on marriage--that reproduction has to be kind after kind, which The ELOHIM defined as good.  Therefore, all marriages involving miscegenation and interracial sex are illegal. 

 

Other texts follow-up with the details on prohibiting miscegenation and interracial sex (Gen 6:1-9 [yes, per Gen 6:9, Noah was perfect in his racial genealogy, meaning that in his ancestry the kind after kind of Gen 1 prevailed]; 24:1-4; 27:46; 28:1-2; Ex 22:19; Lev 18:23-30; 19:19; 20:15-16, 22-26; 21:14-15; Num 25:1; 36:8; Deut 7:1-3; 17:15; 22:9-11; 23:1-9; 27:21; Josh 23:11-13; Jud 3:5-8; Ezra 9:1 to 10:44; Neh 9:2; 10:30; 13:3, 23-29; Prov 5:10, 20; 6:24; 7:5; Jer 2:21-23; 31:27; Dan 2:43; Matt 24:37-39; Lu 17:26-27; I Cor 10:8; Heb 12:16 [yes, Esau was a fornicator in his marriages involving miscegenation]; Rev 2:14); and for sure, it is bad for an Israelite or ger woman to marry a nokri/nekar male to rule over her (Ex 21:7-8; Deut 17:15; Joel 2:17). 

 

In the NT, Shaul furthermore adds the need for people in the election to marry within the Apostolic Assembly faith (I Cor 7:39; II Cor 6:14-16).

 

 

A Recap on Interfaith and Interracial Marriages

 

Here, at this point, a recap will be presented of important issues, as discussed above and/or in prior or later chapters--particularly because interracial marriage is a popular practice in today’s warped society.  Webster’s and other dictionaries place interracial in the context of between the major races--White (Caucasian), Black (Negroid), Red (Mongoloid), Yellow (certain Asians) and Brown (Hispanics and related peoples). 

 

An interracial marriage surfaces when people of these different races marry.  In the Scriptures, the same definitions apply.  Thus, a White German marrying a White Austrian is not involved in interracial marriage.  A Black Canadian marrying a Black American is not involved in interracial marriage.  But an interracial marriage happens when a White American marries a Black American. 

 

Routinely, in the Tanakh, references to nationality are sometimes couched in words which may mislead people into thinking about race.  Consequently, people in the Book are often referred to on the basis of their geographic location, citizenship or nationality.  Per Acts 22, Shaul was a Roman by citizenship.  Yet, he was a Binyaminite/Israelite by race and a Jew by religion. 

 

Moshe was an Egyptian (Ex 2:19), not by race (as he was a racial Israelite--Ex 2:1-10), but by nationality.  In ancient Egypt, we know from archeology that Black, White, Red and Yellow (or Yellow-Brown) people were present.  If a Black Egyptian married a White Egyptian (as happened with Anwar Sadat), then it is an interracial marriage.  If a White Egyptian marries a White Israelite, then it is not an interracial marriage. 

 

In the NT, the word Jew is generally used as a religious definition (like with Shaul), just as is also true with the word Greek.  However, sometimes, the words Greek or Jew appear in the NT in the vein of nationality, but English translations suggest race or religion.  Thus, people in Judea, who were correctly Judeans, are called Jews in English translations, as arising primarily in the book of John. 

 

Timothy’s parents were involved in an interfaith marriage and not an interracial marriage (to be addressed later herein).  One was a Greek sun worshipper and the other was a religious Jew.  The Black Sammy Davis Junior was a reported Jew.  If he married a White Jew, it would be an interracial marriage.  If he married a Black Muslim, it would not be an interracial marriage (but would be an interfaith marriage). 

 

In the Book, the overall marriage laws are always couched in the vein of prohibiting interracial marriages and not marriages of the same race.  Thus, a truly White Caucasian Egyptian or Greek can marry a White Israelite (kind after kind).  But Blacks and Whites can never legally marry in any circumstance, per a dozen or so Scriptures, as cited above.  Such an act would violate the kind after kind law cited in Genesis one. 

 

In the Tanakh, there seems to be no clearly stated prohibitions preventing interfaith or inter-nationality marriages (although Yisrael is to be a kodesh or set-apart people which suggests some limitations on interfaith and inter-nationality marriages).  Yet, the Word does have definite restrictions on interracial marriages (to preserve kind after kind). 

 

Hence, Yitzhak and Yakov married fellow Shemite women kinsmen in Mesopotamia who had been or were pagan worshippers (Gen 31:30-32).  But this did not involve any interracial issues (after all, they were all relatives of the same race as Avraham). 

 

The more open allowance for interfaith marriages makes sense because most of the population in ancient Yisrael (particularly in the House of Yisrael) were outright pagan sun worshippers, just as is true today in Christendom with its 32,000 divided denominations (I Kg 12:26-18:46).  On the basis of a true faith, marriages would be virtually out.  The same is true today in the 32,000 different, pagan, Christian groups. 

 

In the NT, when the election was defined and established, and with the pending climax of the age and the transformation to immortality, Shaul did outline the propriety of avoiding interfaith marriages--obviously, as well as interracial or other prohibited marriages (like the restrictions on incest, on adultery when a married woman tries to marry another man, and even in some cases of so-called divorce and remarriage). 

 

Clearly, Shaul never set those previously existing laws on marriage aside (if he tried to do it, this writer would set Shaul aside).  If existing marriage and sex laws were abolished by Shaul (to be replaced with only a limitation on interfaith marriages), it would mean that two homosexuals can marry as long as they have the same faith. 

 

Some persons have quoted Deut 21:10-14 as justification for interracial marriages.  Of course, this mitzwah (clearly on ger women) never authorized interracial marriages, incestuous marriages or adulterous marriages for whatever reason (as noted earlier). 

 

Yet, this law did seem to allow interfaith marriages (within limitations, perhaps excluding definably wicked women--Deut 23:9), but with the provision that the husband could/should get rid of the woman if he later found it necessary.  In other words, if she didn’t hack it by obeying him (and complying with his religious requirements), he should get rid of her to maintain the Israelite state of being kodesh. 

 

The implication here is that the ger woman, after marriage, would have to conform with her husband’s religion (and become a convert to his faith--Ex 12:48)--or he should correctly get rid of her (as Deut 24:1-4 may allow in this case), in order to maintain Yisrael’s kodesh state (obviously, most young girls [as implied at Deut 21:13] captured in warfare would unquestionably comply with their husband’s wishes/demands). 

 

In the NT, Shaul did not even go this far.  Did he change the law?  No, of course not.  He just interpreted the law with some guidance for the NT election in that they would soon face the age end (this situation is clearly different from the situation in the OT with Yisrael existing nationally and in warfare against other nations.  They are not the same at all.  Truly, one should not compare apples with oranges). 

 

Incidentally, if a believing/kodesh Israelite man did marry a non-believing woman (in kind after kind) and she later accepted his faith, no Scriptural condemnation seems likely of their marriage.  Maybe, he did wrong.  But if she accepts his religion (as she should since he can demand it as the head of household), the wrong seems rectified. 

 

Surely, this is the reality of the marriages by the OT Yitzhak, Yakov and Yosef (Gen 31:30-32; 41:45-50) to pagan women.  In fact, even before these marriages took place, it is possible that the men involved had an agreement with the women that the women would convert and accept the religious faith of their new husbands (except with Leah). 

 

Except for Shlomo, the evidence is strong that the Scripturally acceptable marriages questioned by people today (as being allegedly interracial) were all kind after kind. 

 

The Book itself clearly proves that the Ruth-Boaz and David-Bathsheba marriages were not interracial marriages--Deut 23:1-9.  If Ruth was a racial Moabite, David could never have been King over Yisrael--no way, Hose!  If Bathsheba was a true racial Hittite, Shlomo would never have gained the throne of David, per YHWH’s choice. 

 

Clearly, Bathsheba was an Israelite (or at least, a ger) and Ruth must have been an Israelite (or a ger) who was only a Moabite by geography and nationality, just as Moshe was an Egyptian.  What about Bathsheba’s marriage to Uriah?  Well, this one is covered elsewhere herein.  Though not readily apparent to some persons, Esau’s marriages all seemed to be interracial; and thus, fornication (Heb 12:16). 

 

The case of Moshe and the Cushite woman (Num 12:1) was cited earlier.  Of course, the evidence is substantial that the reference was to Zipporah (Ex 2:21).  If so, this marriage could not possibly have involved interracial sex because YHWH Himself insisted on one boy’s circumcision (Ex 4:24-26; 12:43-49; Deut 23:1-9--a nokri/nekar Cushite would be ineligible for circumcision and membership in the congregation). 

 

And even if the remarks were predicated on a possible earlier Moshe marriage with a Cushite (before the Exodus), it would change nothing.  Surely, one must allow that Moshe would have long earlier repented of any such illegal union.  In that case, Miryam and Aaron were very wrong and in no position to gossip/criticize him at all. 

 

While there are some opponents of truth out there who would like to argue against the interracial problem in Ezra and Nechemyah (on the premise that the issue was not race, but was religion), the Word is clear enough that it was race because of the mention of the physical seedline problem involved (Ezra 9:2), and the fact that the Israelites were told to get rid of both their illegal mates and their own mongrel children (Ezra 9:1-2; 10:2-3, 10-11, 14, 17-19, 44; Neh 9:2; 13:3, 30), just as the Israelites earlier were commanded to kill all of the Canaanites and Amalekites, including small children and babies (Ex 17:14; Deut 25:17-19; 34:11-16; Deut 7:1-5; I Sam 15)--the reason why is that there is a correlation between race and religion, though few people can understand it (as noted earlier, YHWH made a religious decision based on race in His selection of Yisrael). 

 

The problem in Christianity and indeed in the Sacred Name movement is that there is a tendency to refuse to accept the Word for what it says (a perfect sample of this arises in the use of the words Yahweh and Yahshua.  Neither of these names have any Scriptural basis whatsoever.  They are simply not present in a Hebrew Tanakh and they are not correct.  Yet, Sacred Namers insist on using them). 

 

Next, there is a refusal to believe that YHWH never changes and that the Word is always consistent and harmonious, from start to finish.  Christians insist on believing that The ELOHIM is a blundering idiot with constant Babylonian changes, contradictions and confusion--particularly between the NT and OT. 

 

The truth is that He is always the same and never changes.  His Word stands forever, and it cannot be altered or changed.  There are no contradictors or Babylonian confusion in the Book.  It simply is not there-- though confused men say that it is there. 

 

 

More Marriage Questions 

 

If the marriage is legal, then the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives (Rom 7:1-3; I Cor 7:39).  If she has sex with another man, she becomes an adulteress (Ex 20:17; Lev 18:20; 20:10; Deut 5:21; 22:22-27).  Adultery involves a married woman with another man. 

 

Can a married man commit adultery?  Well yes, in at least two situations.  First, he commits adultery with a married woman not his wife and for a second reason to be shortly discussed.  Otherwise, it is questionable! 

 

The Word does not seem to stipulate or signify any license, state requirement, ceremony or procedure to constitute a legal marriage.  While there should be a unity in fellowship and communion, as duties in marriage (to be shortly discussed), a marriage is evidently consummated and occurs whenever an eligible man and eligible woman commit the sexual act--copulation (Gen 2:24; Ex 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). 

 

In Exodus 22:16, the “King James Version’s” use of maid comes from the Hebrew “bethulah” which means “a virgin” (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 1026). 

 

Obviously, if the resulting sexual act between a man and woman is contrary to YAH’s law (incest, miscegenation, rape, etc, as classified in the generic term of fornication), then no marriage can ensue.  In other words, for a marriage to take place, the sex act must be legal in accordance with the Scriptures.  If it is illegal, there is no marriage.  The couple participating in illegal sex are practicing fornication. 

 

While the sex act surely is the ultimate point of determining whether a marriage has taken place or not, the truth is that certain events/arrangements can proceed the marriage--but perhaps, in themselves, do not constitute a marriage.  Thus, two people can agree to marry, parents can betroth their children, a ceremony can occur, etc. 

 

Importantly, Jewish marriages often involve a marriage contract, called a “ketuvah” in Hebrew.  The “Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period” (p. 411) says that the ketuvah was a contract which described the marriage obligations and settlement to the wife in the event of death or divorce. 

 

Much of the historic ketuvah has survived in the sense of oral vows, now spoken by the parties in both Jewish and Christian marriages.  The May/June 1996 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 18) suggests that the entire Torah was the written ketuvah when YHWH married Yisrael in the Exodus.  Possibly, Exodus 20:1 to 23:33 was the actual written ketuvah at Sinai, which was ratified by the people (Ex 24:7).   

 

In most of the Scriptural examples of marriage, and especially in the Torah; marriages were arranged by parents.  If there is a Scriptural pattern, it is this one of parental arranged marriages when circumstances allow it.  Surely, the presence of a ceremony and a ketuvah makes sense and probably is a part and parcel of a proper marriage. 

 

At the Ultra Orthodox Haredi community in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem, previously discussed, marriages are arranged.  As Daniel Klaidman wrote in his article on “The New Defectors,” (Dec 13, 1999, “Newsweek,” p. 54), the betrothed couple may have one brief meeting before they are later firmly bound together. 

 

With arranged marriages, as just noted, dating and courting serve no necessary purpose, although there might be some benefit of a fully chaperoned meeting to introduce a couple and even in the context of an arranged marriage being contemplated by parents and particularly since a girl’s wishes were not totally ignored (Gen 24:5-8).  The same reasoning applies to boys. 

 

Piska 2.4, as taught in the ancient Jewish synagogues, has a fascinating interpretation for Psalms 68:6 (Ps 68:7 in Jewish translations).  It is that as The ELOHIM brings single people to dwell together in marriage, it is as awesome as when He brought forth the imprisoned Israelites out of Egypt-- “bakkosarot.” 

 

The Hebrew bakkosarot can be interpreted as he who accepts the match YHWH makes for him will break out in song, while he who does not accept it will be constrained to weep (“Pesikta De-Rab Kahana,” p. 25).  The obvious solution is to accept the match and sing in happiness. 

 

Perhaps this reality promotes the Talmudic belief (“Everyman’s Talmud,” p. 162) that “the unmarried person lives without joy, without blessing, and without good” and that “an unmarried man is not a man in the full sense” (quoting Gen 5:2). 

 

The Talmud also takes the position that marriages are both arranged in heaven and are destined before birth (“Everyman’s Talmud,” p. 163).  Perhaps the idea here is that marriages are arranged in heaven, even before the couple are born (in the sense of the foreknowledge and sovereignty of The EL and applicable in the vein of the election [who were described in previous chapters] and not necessarily for all persons). 

 

 

Polygyny 

 

While it is certainly true that monogamy is the apparent better approach to marriage and is plainly suggested by the creative act of Adam and Eve and the fact that little boy and little girl babies are born in about the same ratio, the truth is that polygyny is perfectly legal or permissible by YHWH’s Word (Deut 21:15).  In fact, YHWH, Himself, had two wives (the House of Yehudah and the House of Yisrael). 

 

David had seven wives and ten concubines.  Some of them were expressly given to him by YAH (II Sam 12:8).  Shlomo had 1000 wives and concubines.  But many were illegal (involving miscegenation) and in defiance of YAH’s law for kings (Deut 17:17) 

 

Also, per the Apostle Shaul, ruling elders and deacons in YAH’s assembly can only have one wife, likely based upon Deuteronomy 17:17 (I Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).  Maybe the value of Shaul’s words lies in the fact that YESHUA did not want His assembly leaders using the power of their offices to take most of the women for themselves, sometimes leaving few or none for the other male members of the group. 

 

Shaul’s remarks make it quite clear that the Mormon leaders were grossly in sin with their multiple wives back in the 19th century.  Typically, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and the other Mormon big shots tried to take more than a fair share of the available women.  Often, they would take young girls, all the while that young boys in their organization had no wives at all because no single women were available. 

 

This polygyny reality is perhaps one reason why the situation is different with men, as opposed to women, in terms of adultery.  In mentioning this allowability of polygyny in the Scriptures, this writer is not advocating that process in any generic sense.  In almost any way of looking at it, polygyny is not good, and especially for the women and children involved. 

 

As just outlined above, The CREATOR has created the male and female populations in just about the same ratio, the same number of males and females.  This is an important clue that monogamy was the created order.  Even the sense of one Adam and one Eve communicates monogamy. 

 

There is one more bad fall-out of polygyny.  A Mormon man named Tom Green, living near Provo, Utah, married five wives over the years.  He married them at their ages 13 to 16 and had 29 children by the time he was 52 years old in 2001.  He couldn’t support them.  So they went on welfare.  Ultimately, authorities arrested him and tried him for bigamy.  He was found guilty of five counts on May 18, 2001. 

 

Besides jail time over the bigamy (5 years), he was tried for child rape over getting one of the 13-year-old girls pregnant.  Not only was Green’s actions illegal, per man’s laws; but even morally, he was wrong to marry young, 13-year-old girls and get them pregnant when he could not even provide for them and the children (and then expect the taxpayers to support them). 

 

Next, there is the question of incest.  In Tom Green’s lot of wives, there were three sisters.  The Word declares that it is illegal to marry sisters (surely, while they are alive--Lev 18:18).  What about Yakov and the two sisters he had.  Well, it was likely wrong.  Maybe, Yakov was eventually made to repent of it. 

 

Finally, one must wonder how many young Mormon men were denied wives by men like Brigham Young and Tom Green (who took more than a fair share).  Is this brotherly love in the Mormon Church for a man to take more than one wife while some of his brothers have no wife?  Surely, Young and Green were both very wrong. 

 

Truly, the Mormons never understood the Scriptural words on marriage.  No wonder Mormon leaders took wives by the hundreds (Deut 17:17; I Tim 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). 

 

So, why would The ELOHIM allow men to have more than one wife with all of the obvious shortcomings.  First, men could take captured “ger” women in warfare as plunder (Deut 21:10-14, as discussed above and in a prior chapter). 

 

Next, there is surely one key reason why YHWH has allowed it.  Perhaps the constant warfare and slaughter of men would make it very difficult for some women to ever have a husband and children (which they need for all kinds of good reasons). 

 

Yes, a woman needs a husband and children.  This is just the natural order of things and there is no way to avoid it.  Manifestly, during times of war, many men can die (on both sides, as in WWI/II).  The result can create a condition where women significantly exceed the available men.  Clearly, this is a situation where polygyny serves a good purpose (for women on both sides of a conflict--to include captured, ger women). 

 

Beyond this instance (where a calamity has reduced the availability of males in a population), this writer cannot rationalize any particular benefit in polygyny.  Maybe when war and killings end in the millennium, The ELOHIM will institute monogamy as being the required norm.  Hence, for now, polygyny seems permissible (in limited situations and time frames, after a great loss of men), but not desirable. 

 

Although polygyny was Scripturally allowable, the Christian Western culture has come to dictate monogamous marriages which interestingly was always the standard under sun worshipping Zoroastrianism (per “What the Great Religions Teach,” p. 9) that must have influenced the later Grecian and Roman Empires and developing Christianity. 

 

Beyond the old sun worship cults that advocated monogamy, it should be noted that the Jewish Talmud also prescribes monogamous marriages, as noted earlier.  It’s hard to say why the Talmud has this belief.  But it could have come from Zoroastrianism. 

 

The reality of monogamy has denied a number of Adamic women an opportunity to have an Adamic husband.  Some have turned to the behemah for a mate.  This is a very sad state that an Adamic woman turns to a behemah animal in order to have a mate!  But many do in today’s world. 

 

The proper legal marriage produces required duties for the participants; and above all else, love and fellowship, in their true and correct forms.  Because of space constraints, these duties will not be listed or elaborated upon in this study.  After all, many of them have been or are taught from time to time in Christian pulpits. 

 

 

Natural Sex? 

 

Obviously, sex was intended to be part and parcel of a marriage between a man and a woman.  Of course, the ultimate purpose is procreation (which is one of the mitzwot in the Torah).  Otherwise, it is true that sex is both enjoyable and promotes health and love within the couple.  Manifestly, a married woman is entitled by law (in the Torah) to her conjugal rights (Ex 21:10-11). 

 

Future chapters will assess the question of sodomy (or unnatural sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual), gross sexual permissiveness and sickening sexual aberrations in the United States and especially in the US White House in the  form of sodomy, perversion and kinky sex as carried on by former US President Clinton. 

 

Suffice to say, unnatural sex is sodomy and is contrary to the Torah.  Oral sex is unnatural.  And sex between one man and two women is unnatural and so forth.  Manifestly, masturbation seems unnatural and perhaps is covered in the broad definition of porneia--though this writer has not been able to substantiate it as needed.  But the case with Onan and Tamar may apply when he wasted his seed (Gen 38:2). 

 

Probably, the best rule to follow on all forms of sex is to simply don’t think about it.  Once we allow our mind to address the subject, there is then some probability that the thinking will progress into some action (of some kind, from masturbation on up the scale).  Next, just don’t start masturbating as the expected solution.  Once one starts, it’s hard to break the habit.  Last, for uncontrolled passions, get married (I Cor 7:9). 

 

On this theme of perverted and unnatural sex, this writer is compelled to mention several examples of how incredibly bad, depraved and totally sick the modern United States has become--in the context of the present obsession over sex in all of its forms. 

 

For example, this writer was once acquainted with a couple of older men who were in a partnership of sorts on a project of common interest to both of them (in the partnership arrangement, one man held the decided advantage).  The man with the advantage was divorced and without a woman while his colleague (who just happened to be part Indian) had a wife and several daughters. 

 

Apparently, the man without a woman expressed his need for a woman (or there were some strains in the partnership).  So his partner arranged for one of his daughters to move in with him and supply his sexual needs (evidently not in the context of a planned, permanent and lasting marriage or union, as they both eventually split). 

 

Now, if they would have entered into a binding marriage relationship (though there was no legal union, they could have conceivably accepted the relationship as a common law marriage in the context that copulation constitutes marriage--assuming that they were both eligible for marriage), this would have been no big deal. 

 

However, the tragedy arose in that the disadvantaged partner arranged for his daughter to become a shackmate, with evidently no intention of a permanent relationship.  In other words, the partner and his wife agreed for their daughter to be a whore.  Actually, this is not totally rare--as parents who are on drugs or otherwise will often prostitute out their daughters for drugs, money or benefits. 

 

Actually, it probably was not unusual that the part Indian partner would willingly prostitute his own daughter out for some reason.  Historically, Indians never seemed to mind whom their daughters were copulating with.  In the old days, the Indian savages would gladly trade their daughters to White traders in exchange for some whisky. 

 

Perhaps the classic example of the epitome of evil on sex occurred a few years ago.  This writer read a news report of an elderly man who was a widower without a woman.  He lived alone and had a daughter who would come by occasionally to bring him food, clean his house and look in on him and his needs. 

 

In time, the man or his daughter determined that he also needed a little sexual release.  So the daughter became the incestuous whore to get in the sack with her father to supply his ostensible needs.  Clearly, this constituted gross perversion, sickness and sin.  But things like this seem to be a part and parcel of the modern Christian culture. 

 

A third case arose in a Jan 17, 2003, news report in the Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. B5) about a former Spokane area man who had been arrested in California for trading child porn pictures with pedophiles on the Internet.  As it turned out, the man, Harry E. Tschernetzki, actually used photos of his own daughter who was between 2 1/2 and 5 years old at the time. 

 

Tschernetzki was given 10 years in prison, the mandatory minimum sentence, for sexual exploitation of a child by a parent (a federal crime).  In a fourth case, this same newspaper report also briefly mentioned the arrest of a Danish couple in the United States for likewise trading photos with pedophiles over the Internet (ibid, p. B5).  These pictures showed the couple molesting and abusing their own nine-year old daughter. 

 

 

Are Bedrooms Really Private? 

 

The modern, Christian, sun worship culture operates on the premise that what goes on in a man’s bedroom is in the realm of a unique freedom--profoundly more important than the US Bill of Rights which provides such things as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, etc (although these Constitutional freedoms are quickly being eroded in the new politically correct society, as will be proven in later chapters). 

 

But the freedom in the bedroom has found new support and new popularity with all of the allegations against President Slick Clinton and his sodomite practices in the Oval Office of the President (to be assessed in a later chapter), though Big Brother has been extensively involved in monitoring all speech in an effort to infringe upon the freedom of speech, even in the bedroom (also to be commented upon in later chapters). 

 

Thus, it matters not one iota what modern Americans do (sexually, in the form of perversion, sodomy, etc) in the privacy of their bedrooms.  But the federal government is now keenly interested in monitoring the words spoken in even bedrooms and may have listening devices installed to see if a hate crime occurs or if politically incorrect words are uttered (as will be assessed later). 

 

Of course, this concept of absolute freedom in the bedroom goes all the way back to the old sun cults where the one guaranteed freedom the sun worshippers enjoyed was--freedom in their bedrooms.  Christendom picked upon it.  But eventually, in the dark ages and during the Protestant Reformation, Christians specified that it had to exist only as a freedom between married men and women. 

 

But the 20th and early 21st centuries have seen Christianity extend the sex freedom to unmarried couples and even homosexual couples.  The word “sodomy” has been thrown out of the window and even male and female couples are manifestly free to engage in the most demented and kinky forms of sex, in the privacy of the bedroom (or in the Oval Office, if it involves the President of the US). 

 

But is there such a thing as freedom in the bedroom in the context of the Scriptures and what YHWH defines as proper conduct for His followers?  The answer is “no.”  There is no such freedom because even sex is legislated upon in the Scriptures. 

 

For example, the Book spells out some very powerful statements on sanitation and quarantining (which will be assessed in a later chapter on health).  Leviticus 15 is one of the important chapters in the Word with this focus (i.e. verses 1-15, 31-33 which seems to cover a man who has an unnatural discharge from his sexual organ--like perhaps from gonorrhea). 

 

Obviously, no man or woman should be involved in sexual intercourse if either of them have a diseased sexual organ.  Thus, much of this chapter is plain enough without comment.  However, two segments of this wonderful chapter does raise some interesting questions (Lev 15:16-18 and Lev 15:19-30). 

 

As the “Soncino Chumash” (p. 700) indicates, both the man and woman become unclean after intercourse.  The solution--both should take a bath afterward.  Uncleanness would also extend to a man when he has an involuntary discharge as well (Lev 15:16).  In that case, the solution remains the same.  He should take a bath!  Finally, any involved clothing or bedding should be washed, as appropriate. 

 

The second segment (of Lev 15:19-30) seems to focus more on the period of a woman’s menstruation.  She becomes unclean for seven days (Lev 15:19).  And in this context, she apparently is not to have intercourse for that period.  On the surface, no thinking person would want to be involved in sex in that case (although this writer must confess this sin on one occasion--along with so many other sins charged to my account).  But the Word raises the issue to the law and duty level. 

 

At this point in time, this writer cannot be dogmatic on why intercourse is restricted during a woman’s time of menstruation.  Assuredly, there are biological and psychological reasons for this limitation.  The same seems true on accounting for the need for bathing after intercourse.  Surely, YHWH knows what He is talking about whether we can understand it or not. 

 

Now, while the historic sun worship position on freedom in the bedroom has been carried forward into the Western, Christian, sun worship culture, the Book does impose some limits on sex.  Most of these issues focus on marriage, adultery, fornication and sodomy (but some even assess sanitation, as just noted).  The point is that believers are not free to do whatever they please, even in the privacy of their bedrooms. 

 

 

The Promiscuity Problem 

 

The prohibition on adultery is spelled out in the seventh commandment of the Decalogue.  As will be shortly addressed, this commandment primarily focuses upon the question of the sexual unfaithfulness of a married woman (to obviously include her paramour of whatever martial status). 

 

While this focus of unfaithfulness is made upon the woman in her conduct of the marriage (that is, after she is married), the case can be made that it pertains equally as well to her state before the marriage (while she is correctly betrothed which effectively constitutes a state just like marriage in the Hebrew culture).   

 

Otherwise, the various mitzwot in the Torah (cited earlier, herein, on the questions of sex and fornication) communicate a most interesting case of reality.  The woman’s sexual properties and activities must be limited to her husband only.  Later comments to follow in this chapter will address the issues of telegony and the transference of a man’s DNA to his wife during copulation. 

 

Hence, if she commits fornication before or after the marriage (or betrothal), she and her paramour have offended her then husband or husband to be later.  Probably, this is the reason for the death penalty for girls who lose their virginity illegally before marriage and for both the woman and man involved in clear adultery after marriage. 

 

In other words, the argument might be advanced that the seventh commandment addresses not only aspects of the woman’s life after marriage, but it also focuses upon aspects of her life before marriage.  Surely, this mitzwah is far reaching and profound if we could but understand it. 

 

There are many, many, profound reasons for the seventh commandment (to include the just mentioned telegony and the transference of the man’s DNA, as cited above).  However, there is one more profound reason which seems to become very prevalent in a promiscuous society.  This issue concerns health and disease. 

 

On this question, the Oct 11-17, 1999, “Washington Times” (p. 10) had a story by Joan Lowy on “Promiscuity is putting many women at risk” which said that 17 million American women are at risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease because either they or their partners have had sexual contact with others in the past year. 

 

To further demonstrate the tragedy of the modern times, the December 1999 “End Times News” (p. 4) had some statistics compiled by author David Barton in an assessment of public education.  Barton noted that from 1963 to 1980, the US divorce rate doubled (after having slightly declined in the years 1948-1963). 

 

From 1963 to 1975, the sexually transmitted disease rate went up 313%.  During the years 1962 to 1982, child abuse and neglect cases tripled while sexual abuse cases increased ten fold.  In 22 years, single parent families went up 250%; there was a 400% increase in the number of unmarried couples living together; and the incidences of adultery and unfaithfulness in marriages tripled. 

 

Therefore, the question of morality is not the only issue facing a marriage with a promiscuous partner.  In terms of sexually transmitted diseases, the person involved in multiple sexual encounters faces a danger as bad as playing with rattlesnakes.  Though this chapter is on marriage between men and women, it is clear that the biggest threat of all comes from the homosexual encounters of men. 

 

 

The Adultery Issue, Revisited  

 

There is no doubt about it whatsoever.  The Word condemns all forms of fornication--both before marriage and after marriage.  We can be assured that in the creation, The HIGHEST did intend that young people be virgins when they get married.  This is especially true with young women.  Because, as noted above, they faced a death penalty if they lost their virginity in fornication (Deut 22:13-21). 

 

The act of adultery (involving a married woman or even a girl betrothed in sex with another man besides her husband or husband to be) was a most serious crime.  It, too, invoked the death penalty for both paramours (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-23). 

 

Since the adultery question is precisely defined by The ELOHIM in His Word in the context of a married woman, some modern persons may not appreciate why this condition prevails.  There is a tendency for moderns to approach this issue in the vein of ancient Grecian sun worship which “liberated” women from their historic destinies.  

 

Although the Decalogue (Ex 20:14, 17) and numerous other Tanakh statements are plain enough that adultery is sin and worthy of divorce, many Christians can never appreciate this fact, primarily because they are misinformed on the meaning of John 8:1-11 where the woman was caught in alleged adultery and was brought before YESHUA and He forgave her, instead of stoning her as the law required for adulterers. 

 

This is a wonderful message and it is pregnant with great meaning.  First, where was the man?  If she was caught, why then wasn’t the man caught and also in appearance before YESHUA, as the Torah required (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22).  Hence, maybe she wasn’t caught in the act, but was merely suspected of adultery. 

 

For suspected adultery, the law of jealousy required certain actions involving “dust” by the priests at the Temple in order to establish the guilt of the woman (Num 5:11-31).  Was that why YESHUA wrote in the dust?  Did He write about the law of jealousy?  Or perhaps He wrote--where is the man?  Or maybe, He wrote both! 

 

Of course, the hypocrites that brought her to Him weren’t concerned with truth and justice and particularly if one allows that they did, in fact, know something about The ELOHIM’s laws.  They were dishonest and deceitful in their efforts to try to trap Him on something, besides just bringing up justice. 

 

But The ANOINTED ONE knew and understood the Torah and their evil hearts.  He obeyed the law and did the right thing in forgiving the apparently innocent woman, caught up in their wickedness. 

 

 

What Can Happen 

 

A very clear example of what can happen occurred in 2000 in one of the Northern states of Nigeria which adopted Islamic law.  Per an NPR report on Jan 17, 2001, a 16-year-old girl became pregnant, outside of wedlock, and a Muslim court ordered her beaten 160 times with a cane.  Later, the sentence was changed to 100 strokes. 

 

The girl named three local Nigerian lovers and pointed out which one was the father.  All three of them swore on the Koran that they were innocent and accordingly were exonerated by the Nigerian authorities.  The girl was to then receive her beating.  Whomever the father was and whomever else she had sex with all got off scot-free. 

 

Another case came from Nigeria in 2001 when a woman, Amina Lawal, deserted her husband and commenced an affair with a neighbor, Yahaya Mohammed (“Casting Stones,” in the Sep 2, 2002, “Time,” p. 36-37).  Soon, the woman was pregnant. 

 

Yahaya said he didn’t want children, but a local chief ruled that Yahaya would have to take responsibility for the coming child (in the summer of 2002).  Thus, Yahaya gave Lawal some money to buy firewood to boil water during the delivery of the baby. 

 

Six days after the baby was born, police arrested Amina for adultery.  She was tried and found guilty and sentenced to death by stoning (the Nigerian method of stoning is to bury the accused in the ground to the chest and then the stoning takes place).  Yahaya was also arrested, but since four witnesses were needed to convict an accused Muslim man in adultery, he was released. 

 

This article from “Time” said that typically in adultery cases in Muslim states, it is only the female person who is found guilty and sentenced to death.  Men routinely beat the rap since it takes four witnesses to convict the man.  With the woman, the pregnancy is always sufficient proof.  Several Islamic states still use stoning for these executions (i.e. Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen). 

 

One more similar case was reported in the earlier May 28, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 20) with a story from Pakistan.  In 2001, a young, illiterate, married woman named Zabran Bibi went to the police with a story that she had been raped.  She identified her assailant as a local person in her village.  A Pakistani judge exonerated the man and convicted her of adultery.  He sentenced her to death by stoning. 

 

In Muslim circles, rape is in the same category as adultery.  For a male rapist to be convicted, he must be seen in the act by four adult male Muslims or he must confess the rape.  This means that male rapists generally get away with the crime.  They rarely are punished.  But suspected women are more easily found guilty and can be accordingly punished. 

 

In poor Bibi’s case, she was pregnant to further complicate things.  As it turned out, Bibi’s husband was in jail and her father-in-law forced her to make the rape allegation.  The latest twist was that her husband said he was the father of the child and she became pregnant from conjugal visits with him. 

 

Though this Pakistan case is more complicated than the above cited cases in Nigeria, all three cases demonstrate the problem that a woman can face as opposed to what a man faces.  In some societies, the society is quick to blame women for infidelity and then let offending men off scot-free.  Surely, this is the type of a situation which YESHUA disapproved of.  Yes, it takes two parties to commit adultery. 

 

 

More on Marriage 

 

While rape was condemned and promised death to the guilty (Deut 22:25-27), there was a provision in the Torah that if a man and woman are both involved in premarital sex (willingly) and they be found, they are then married and the man can never later condemn her or evidently divorce her for not being a virgin (Deut 22:28-29). 

 

This reference in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in conjunction with the other two Scriptures cited above herein (Gen 2:24; Ex 22:16-17), communicate that the sex act alone apparently constitutes marriage.  In this regard, it appears that every time a man or woman is involved with a different sexual partner, he or she acquires another husband or wife.  This condition is awesome to think about in the case of prostitutes. 

 

 

The Role of Woman 

 

It must be noted that in the beginning, The CREATOR created Adam in His image (Gen 1:26).  The reality that man needed a helpmate or assistant surfaced following the creation of Adam (Gen 2:18).  Accordingly, Eve was formed from him (Gen 2:21-25). 

 

There is a second profound reason for the destiny which has come upon women.  As discussed in former chapters, it was Eve, the woman, who first entered into sin and rebellion against The HIGHEST.  While Adam was wrong for trying to blame the woman for his sin, it is the real world that indeed she did play a role in introducing him to sin.  They both were guilty.  But she probably was more guilty. 

 

These two events in the early chapters of Genesis spelled out a role for woman which she was destined to fulfill.  In fact, because Greek sun worship has completely taken over the Adam kind, the real world is that modern women are grossly out of place.  They are unhappy, mixed up and too often, candidates for suicide.  What a mistake it has been for woman to lose sight of her goal or place in life. 

 

In laying out the punishment upon woman for her role in promoting the first sin, YHWH judged that her desire would be to her husband and he would rule over her (Gen 3:16).  Some modern Christians may not appreciate how profound and extraordinary that pronouncement is.  But it is far reaching.  And because modern people have lost sight of that judgment, things are mixed up and in confusion. 

 

There are a host of related Scriptures.  In connection with head coverings, Shaul wrote that the man is head of the woman (I Cor 11:3).  He went on to add that man is not of the woman, but that the woman is of the man; and that the man was not created for the woman, but the woman was created for the man (I Cor 11:7-9). 

 

To the Ephesians, Shaul charged that women are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24), and that the wife should “reverence” her husband (Eph 5:33).  Moreover, to the Colossians, Shaul also said for women to submit to their husbands (Col 3:18). 

 

The Apostle Kefa got in on the subject when he declared that wives must be in submission to their husbands (I Pet 3:1).  No wonder, Kefa would just add some commentary on the need for women to be in humility (I Pet 3:1-6).  With this backdrop, it is no wonder that women are to be generally silent in The ELOHIM’s congregation and to never exercise authority over man (I Cor 11:1-15; 14:33-35; I Tim 2:9-15). 

 

As outlined elsewhere herein, the duties of the husband and wife are preached upon frequently in Christian Church pulpits.  There is no particular need to try to cover them here.  Suffice to say, man, in his dominion over his wife, is obligated to love her and give her honor as the weaker vessel (Eph 5:25-33; Col 3:19; I Pet 3:7). 

 

When man and woman become one in intercourse, as at the creation (Gen 2:24), there is still one more possible aspect of this question which needs mention.  Prior chapters have cited the problem of demons attaching to people when they engage in sin. 

 

The point was made that it is a very dangerous process for a man to frequent a whorehouse.  Who knows what kind of sex demons can be picked up at such a place.  Obviously too, it is a tragedy beyond description when a girl or woman enters the prostitution profession.  Sometimes, women are seemingly forced into this profile unwillingly (although some do enter it willingly). 

 

The same reasoning applies to promiscuous people--both before and after marriage.  If this idea of demons becoming attached to people in illicit fornication is true, then the door is opened to all kinds of problems after illegal fornication.  Like Shaul wrote--flee fornication, because people in fornication sin against their own bodies (I Cor 6:18). 

 

Probably, most of us will never fully understand the realties involved in illegal sexual activities.  But since it is so heavily stressed and discussed in the Word, the ramifications of fornication must be enormous.   Consequently, Shaul’s advice to flee fornication is of profound importance.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 248--Divorce and Remarriage

 

 

One! 

 

The remark in Genesis 2:24 (about the man and woman becoming one in the sex act, as outlined in the prior chapter) was  repeated by YESHUA in the NT (Matt 19:5-6; Mk 10:7-8) and by Shaul (Eph 5:31).  While it is true that man and woman become one when they produce a child, it also seems likely that the idea of husband and wife becoming one is far more profound. 

 

As noted in the preceding chapter, and as also covered elsewhere herein, it might be that through telegony and otherwise, the woman does begin to assume some of the man’s DNA and especially as occurring during copulation. 

 

But there is another moral application of the becoming one in marriage.  Shaul wrote it when he said that a woman was bound to her husband as long as he lives (Rom 7:2).  The Scriptural evidence seems to be that a legal marriage is essentially a permanent relationship.  The divorce question will be covered in the succeeding remarks. 

 

 

Divorce and Remarriage Per YHWH 

 

Despite The EL’s wonderful marriage laws, carnal human people do proceed with divorces from time to time because our evil, wicked hearts are hard (Matt 19:8; Mk 10:5).  Even Christians divorce as much as non-Christians--in the same ratio, as a number of recent studies have proven! 

 

Assuredly, The MOST HIGH hates (illegal and improper) putting away (Mal 2:16).  This is a profound remark to keep in mind every time the divorce question comes up.  This writer has been twice divorced and never understood the horrible, bad features of divorce until the last several years.  Since entering a path of trying to obey The HIGHEST, i, too, have come to passionately hate divorce (illegal divorce). 

 

Yet, The ELOHIM legislated the divorce question in His law (the Torah), apparently because of our hard hearts/wickedness (Deut 24:1-4).  Significantly, YHWH, Himself, divorced His wife--the evil House of Yisrael legally and properly, as described earlier. 

 

 

Some Clarification 

 

In an article on “Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage” in the May-Jun 1997 “Jubilee,” Ted R. Weiland makes the point that the Hebrew word for divorce (kerithuth) in YAH’s divorce law and in His divorce of Yisrael is different from the putting away in Malakhi (shalach) and the send away in Deuteronomy 24:1, 4 (also shalach). 

 

Weiland seems to believe that the distinction lies in the fact that kerithuth refers to a proper legal divorce where the man writes out the bill of divorcement in a legal fashion (not only as a permission from the man, but for the protection of the woman--so that she will not be an adulteress if she remarries for necessary protection and sustenance), while shalach refers to a sending away without benefit of the bill (making her an adulteress if she remarries). 

 

In the Jul-Aug 1997 “Jubilee” (p. 15), Weiland focused on the NT where he suggested that the Greek “apostasion,” means divorce while the Greek “apoluo,” means “put away.” 

 

In tying these words to Matthew 5:31-32, he argued that the “put away” must be with a certificate of divorce from the man; otherwise, if for fornication (in the sense of premarital problems like miscegenation, incest, etc), no certificate is necessary since no legal marriage took place. 

 

But a study of the contextual uses of the Greek apoluo seems to suggest that it might can include the act of divorce (for premarital fornication), as manifested in the written document or bill of divorcement (the Greek apostasion). 

 

Consequently, it may correctly be that the woman is entitled to the written divorce document (called a “get” in the Hebrew) in all cases of being legally put away (otherwise, she might could be labeled an adulteress if she remarries if she just wants to or as may be necessary for her for sustenance and survival). 

 

In other words, the man should not be deceitful and dishonest in his dealings with his wife.  Probably, this interpretation has some merit.  But more likely, it extends to the whole question of whether the divorce is legal and proper or not. 

 

Thus, if a man follows the Torah and writes the bill of divorce out for a legal cause (to be discussed below), then everything is proper.  But if he sends her away or if she leaves without the proper cause and bill, then it is illegal and YHWH hates it. 

 

Alternatively, in the May/Jun 2003 “EAOY Newsletter” (p. 2-7), writer Dennis Bitterman makes the case that the idea of the send away is a separation to allow time for a reconciliation before the divorce is written out and becomes official.  In other words, the send away is a separate act from the actual divorce.  As long as the woman is in this send away status, she cannot remarry unless and until the divorce is rendered. 

 

In the situation at the Ultra Orthodox community of Mea Shearim in Jerusalem, previously mentioned, Daniel Klaidman’s article on “The New Defectors,” (Dec 13, 1999, “Newsweek,” p. 54) focused upon one male member named Noam who abandoned the sect and left it and his wife behind to enter the secular world. 

 

As just noted, the husband must write out the bill of divorcement.  In the case of the poor girl married to Noam--what will she do--if he does not write out the bill of divorcement?  The article did not address this question.  But with the dedication and commitment of Mea Shearim to Torah, it will be a problem. 

 

 

The Cause 

 

The basic divorce law (mentioned several times in earlier chapters) says that if a man finds no favor in his wife for “uncleanness” (Hebrew ervah, meaning a thing of offense, per Young’s “Analytical Concordance,” p. 1012; or a thing of indecency, per “The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs,” p. 850), then he shall write her out a bill of divorcement and send her from him. 

 

Later, after the woman has been married to another man, as is permissible in the Torah and as is usually logical since a woman needs a man to support her and provide for her, she cannot return to her first husband, as it would then be an abomination (Deut 24:1-4). 

 

But there can be still more to this provision in the vein that the sex act itself can almost be the same thing as marriage.  Thus, the case can be made here to include any action by the woman involving sex with another man.  In other words, the total impossibility for her to return to her husband may surface with just any illicit sex on her part with another man. 

 

The first issue with this provision is a definition of the Hebrew word ervah which is very complicated.  Its contextual usages in the Tanakh seem to involve shame as arising in public nudity/nakedness (Deut 23:14; Isa 20:4), illicit sexual activity (Lev 18 and 20) and possibly spiritual fornication in the sense that Yisrael was guilty of ervah in her harlotry with the nations (Lam 1:8; Ezek 16:8, 36, 37; 22:10; 23:10, 18, 29; Hos 2:9). 

 

As a minimum, ervah covers any illegal sexual activities and probably any case where a wife uncovers herself (at least her sexual attributes) in public (in the sense that if a wife should wear sexually revealing clothes, like a mini-skirt, out in public, it possibly would be grounds for her husband to divorce her). 

 

 

More 

 

Three more things surface here.  First, the authority is placed with the man.  Second, it must be for uncleanness or something offensive, whatever that is.  And third, the woman can evidently never return, once she either marries or perhaps just copulates with another man.  This provision raises some questions suggesting that a moral man would have to automatically divorce an adulteress wife (see also Deut 22:22; Jer 3:1). 

 

The NT Yosef is an example of a moral man who evidently considered this option.  Miryam was betrothed to him.  Per the Scriptural account, they had not had any sexual relations (Matt 1:18).  Yet, she became pregnant--from The RUACH HA KODESH (Matt 1:18).  Yosef, being a just man, determined to privately divorce her, before a messenger intervened to alter his plans (Matt 1:19-20). 

 

This writer was acquainted with a couple some years ago who had had a personal experience with YAH’s divorce law in Deuteronomy 24.  This couple had married years earlier and had some children.  They got a divorce. 

 

The woman married another man and was later divorced from husband number two.  Thereupon, she and husband number one married again or at least cohabited together.  But this time, there was a difference. 

 

They did not sleep together, nor was there any sex between them.  They were both celibate.  Why did they go through this second marriage or relationship in view of Deuteronomy 24?  The answer was their love and concern for the children who were still small.  When the chips were down, they were both people of character, something very absent in most of today’s world.

 

 

The David Examples 

 

Was this uncleanness law the situation with David and his concubines after they were violated (apparently raped) by Absalom (II Sam 16:22; 20:3)?  After they came back under David’s control, he put them in perpetual widowhood.  Why?  Perhaps the answer is in the Torah in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. 

 

But much earlier in David’s life, while Shaul was alive, there is another strange twist to this question.  When David was a young man, Shaul gave his daughter Michal to him as a wife (I Sam 18:20-27).  As the conflict between Shaul and David intensified, Shaul reneged on his gift and took Michal back in order to give her subsequently to a man named Phalti (I Sam 25:44). 

 

Still later, David took her back from Phalti (II Sam 3:13-14).  Did Michal copulate with Phalti?  If so, why did or how could David take her back?  Was it because David never divorced her as she went to Phalti by force and would have assuredly been raped?  After returning to David, did he copulate again with her, raising questions about Deuteronomy 24:1-4?  All of these questions do not seem to be answered. 

 

In any case, she ended up never having children (II Sam 6:20-23), although she apparently raised her sister’s five sons (“Soncino Books of the Bible,” II Sam 21:8, p. 321, quoting the Talmud, Sanh. 19b).  Soncino notes that some Hebrew texts actually refer to these sons in question as sons of Merab.  Perhaps later texts were corrupted to read Michal in the sense that she raised them, as outlined in the Talmud. 

 

 

The Adam and Eve Incident 

 

This interesting issue in Deuteronomy 24 could well have had some particular relevance to the situation with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when Satan introduced sin to them in the context of sex (Gen 3).  Adam and Eve were created the sixth day of that (re)creation week.  It is highly likely that Adam and Eve consummated their marriage that sixth day. 

 

The next day was the Seventh day Sabbath.  Plainly, YHWH came down and evidently taught them His laws and this very well could have included his laws on sex, marriage, adultery and the issues of Deuteronomy 24.  The next day (Sunday), Nachash apparently arrived to share some sun worship theology with them. 

 

As elsewhere established herein from the Word, Satan literally seduced Eve, and she manifestly became pregnant with Cain.  After the Adversary was finished with her, she turned herself back to her husband and he partook of her fruit--just as Satan had used her.  Likely, she again became pregnant--the second time with Abel, from Adam. 

 

And while this swapping of women back and forth among males is part and parcel of sun worship theology (like with the famous, womanizing, Kennedy brothers of Massachusetts, who historically traded off girl friends, to be discussed in a later chapter), it clearly is at serious odds with YHWH’s Torah in Deuteronomy 24. 

 

In this sense, it would appear that when Adam took Eve in sex, just after she had committed adultery with Satan, his action became an abomination before The ELOHIM (Deut 24:4).  In effect, both Adam and Eve sinned. 

 

Incidentally, the recall of this first sin in the Garden of Eden has been outlined in the context of three successive, literal days of 24 hours each (as was probably the case, from the written context of the presentation). 

 

However, the door must always be left open to some other time determinations (for example, each yom, period or day in the [re]creation, could have covered a longer duration of time).  Consequently, Satan’s visit could have come considerably later than the next day following (re)creation week.  But the presentation does suggest the next day--the first day of the next week. 

 

 

Another Illustration 

 

This writer has been a very evil man in this lifetime.  There is much shame over the many sins of my life and it is painful to recall them in my old age.  Nevertheless, this writer went through two divorces over a period of ten years, as noted earlier.  In both cases the women each contacted me after they had been with other men in an effort for them to return and have a marriage with me. 

 

Despite my many shortcomings, i at least knew enough to say “no,” based on Deuteronomy 24. 

 

However, it must be acknowledged that i came under some very bad influence from Sardis, sun worship theology (for a short while, some 34 years ago) to temporarily confuse and convince me that i was still legally bound and married to wife number one (but thankfully, this erroneous Sardis teaching did not return me to the abominating act, condemned in Deuteronomy 24). 

 

The reason for citing this reality in my life is to suggest that in the modern, sun worship culture there is a prevailing view that a woman can bounce around from man to man and still ultimately return to a prior husband after being defiled with another man. 

 

This sun worship theology, of course, has been transferred into the various sun worship, Christian Churches.  Many Christian Churches, leaders and lay people get all excited and pleased when a divorced couple can remarry or resume a marriage, though the woman has been defiled by adultery or with a subsequent marriage to another man.  But per the Word, this is gross wickedness! 

 

 

Once Married, Always Married 

 

The old, mother, Sardis Church of God (Seventh Day) of Denver, Colorado and her many offshoots have traditionally held a “once married, always married” concept over the years.  This view presupposes that there is no such thing as divorce in the Scriptural context (the Roman Catholic Church is the progenitor of this theory within Christendom, as will be shortly discussed). 

 

The most famous Sardis fallout of this thinking was the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG) which used to force people in a divorce and remarriage state to separate from or divorce a subsequent mate and be celibate or try to be reconciled and returned to a former, number one partner. 

 

One of the great evils and tragedies of this Sardis Worldwide group was their insistence on breaking up and destroying the lives of people involved in divorce and remarriage.  They categorically had no concept of what Deuteronomy 24 said at all.  The Sardis Sacred Name offshoot at Bethel, PA seems to hold this traditional sun worship view, as well, to this day. 

 

While Sardis seems to have had her historical concepts on divorce and remarriage wrong, it must be acknowledged that Romans 7:1-3 does communicate an incredibly powerful tie between married people (as will be discussed below). 

 

In more recent years, some of the Sardis groups have come under pressure from the more liberal and permissive society (which seems to have no restrictions whatsoever on divorce and remarriage) and re-examined their positions.  A former chapter outlined the change in thinking in the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG) which bounced around from one position to another in a state of confusion. 

 

For awhile, it looked like the WWCG lost all sense of what both marriage and divorce meant--primarily because the church’s founder, old Herbert Armstrong, had his eyes set upon a young divorcee, who was part Indian.  In order to marry her and pacify the dumb sheep (that’s what the leadership sometimes called the church members) under his control, Herbert chose to change church rules on marriage and divorce. 

 

Over the years, it appears that the old, mother, Sardis Church of God (Seventh Day) at Denver, Colorado has modified her divorce and remarriage stance somewhat as well.  Apparently, this church (or at least, many of her individual congregations) would not allow divorce and remarriage at all for many years. 

 

However, the latest position of mother Sardis is that she now recognizes fornication (sexual unfaithfulness) as a sufficient cause for divorce (presumably, on the part of a man or a woman, as is the traditional, gender-less, Christian mode). 

 

Accordingly, mother Sardis in Denver, Colorado will cite several NT Scriptures, supposedly in support of her position; all the while that she totally ignores the whole basic Scriptural divorce position in the Torah (Deuteronomy 24). 

 

Mother Sardis now says that those who remarry after divorce, except that the divorce was for the cause of fornication, commit adultery and those who marry a divorced person (divorced for some other cause, rather than fornication), commit adultery. 

 

This most recent position is a significant step up from the old erroneous Sardis position of once married, always married.  The new doctrine is still wrong in some aspects.  But it is much closer to truth than the former teaching. 

 

Importantly, the new rule fails to denote differences from the man as opposed to the woman (per the actual divorce authorization outlined in Deuteronomy 24).  Like other Christian sun worship groups, mother Sardis cannot differentiate between men and women in any discussion upon marriage and divorce.  Sardis believes that men and women are exactly the same. 

 

The traditional Christian theory that a woman can bounce around from man to man (as is the case in prostitution) and still return to a former lover or husband has never particularly bothered Sardis entities, as it has not bothered traditional Christianity (though categorically condemned as an abomination in Deuteronomy 24). 

 

Thus, the Sardis Churches evidently would always (past and present) support the idea that a woman defiled by another man can still return to her former husband.  Perhaps this is the reason that mother Sardis does not even bother to quote Deuteronomy 24 in discussing divorce.  Of course, this is sun worship theology which is at serious odds with the Word. 

 

 

YESHUA and Judaism 

 

For many years, Judaism was divided over what this uncleanness or offense was, as mentioned by Moshe in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, as noted before.  The School of Shammai said that it had to be for adultery only.  The School of Hillel was far more liberal, allowing other causes as well (which became the position of Rabbinic Judaism). 

 

YESHUA evidently chose a somewhat middle ground position and declared that a man could not divorce his wife except for uncleanness--specifically fornication--involving, as a minimum, illegal sexual activities (Matt 5:32; 19:9).  While many Christians can’t get it through their heads, married people evidently can be guilty of fornication (I Cor 7:2-5). 

 

Fornication essentially means sex sins in general, as the New Testament’s contextual uses of the Greek word “porneia” suggest (adultery--Rev 2:21-22; incest--I Cor 5:1; harlotry--I Cor 6:13-18; 10:8; inter-racial unions--Ex 22:19; Lev 18:23; Heb 12:15-16; a woman’s premarital sex--Deut 22:13-21; Matt 1:19; homosexuality--Jude 7; etc). 

 

Hence, YHWH legally divorced the sinning House of Yisrael for adultery or fornication (Isa 50:1; Jer 3:1-14; Hos 2:1-19). 

 

Though not clearly defined in the Word, heavy petting and French kissing must likely be included in the porneia/ervah definitions (Hollywood flippantly shows this stuff as normal and right among people--but is this heavy necking normal and right?).  Thus, the woman who participates in such actions (without actual sexual intercourse) would surely be in a borderline situation on porneia, and possibly deserving of divorce. 

 

“Strong’s Greek Dictionary” recognizes the sexual link and adds “... metaph, the worship of idols (2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.”  This could open the door to something beyond just physical sex sins. 

 

Accordingly, Dennis Bitterman, in the above cited May/Jun 2003 “EAOY Newsletter” (p. 3), notes that porneia is used eight times in the NT “in the figurative sense of spiritual fornication, which no doubt would include witchcraft showing it to be a legal means of divorce if an innocent party was married to a Medium unknowingly.” 

 

Thus, the question must come up if this idea of spiritual fornication in the NT is based upon the Tanakh’s use of the word ervah to describe Yisrael’s illegal attachments to idolatry with other nations?  Consequently, it might be that if a believing man marries a woman and later finds out that she worships a pagan god or the demonic world, it may present a proper cause of divorce. 

 

As a minimum, in any cases involving pagan worship, there would have to be an element of innocence on the part of the husband for him to later divorce the woman over her worship activities--in that he married the woman with ignorance about her true worship practices (just as is true when a man marries a woman, believing that she is a virgin, and later discovers that she is not). 

 

In all such cases, the man must act quickly or promptly on the matter and not cohabit with the woman over a period of time, only to try to divorce her later over this excuse, after having lived with her knowing full well the truth. 

 

 

More on the Get 

 

Orthodox Judaism (which regulates marriage and divorce in the modern Israeli state) adopted the Hillel position years ago of allowing divorce for many liberal reasons.  However, as the Torah demands, the Orthodox express this allowance in the vein of authority possessed by the husband (and not the wife).  In other words, the man can write out a bill of divorcement (a get) for his wife and send her away. 

 

This probably has caused some problems in the state of Israel because some men have refused to accommodate their wives with the get.  The June 9, 2000, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 30) had a write up by Jonathan Rosenblum on the subject.  He cited an instance of a broken marriage where the man refused for seven years to grant his wife the “get” (bill of divorcement). 

 

Some of the Jewish secularists and feminists and liberal sects (like the Reform) have been pushing for a form of annulment in those cases where the man refuses to grant his wife the sought divorce.  The theory is that any man who refuses to grant his wife a get (if she wants it) is a “sadist” who entered into the marriage dishonestly.  Therefore, there is a push on to allow a religious sanctioned annulment in that case. 

 

Per Rosenblum’s remarks, such an annulment might serve the wishes of the liberals at this point in time, but no Orthodox Jew will recognize it.  Apparently, the issue won’t go any place as long as the Orthodox (correctly) maintains religious authority in the Jewish state. 

 

 

Other Interpretations 

 

In a discussion on the unity of man and woman in marriage (Gen 2:24), the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (TDNT, v. I, p. 650) believes that “Copulation without communion is fornication.”  Thus, marriage should involve a unity in fellowship--far more than just sexual relations (as earlier outlined).  This questionable belief, if true, would bring a new dimension to the issue of fornication. 

 

The TDNT (v. I, p. 650) goes on to note that adultery affects the fundamental unity of the partners.  A woman’s act of adultery seems to destroy the marriage relationship. 

 

However, a divorced woman seems to gain a legitimate status in the Word (Num 30:9).  Thus, when legally divorced, the woman is evidently free to marry again.  But once she remarries or perhaps even has sex with another man, she can never return to her former husband because it would then be an abomination. 

 

In His statements on divorce, The MESSIAH “seems to have” interpreted the law to provide that if a man illegally and without cause divorces a woman in order to marry another woman, he then commits adultery (Matt 19:9; Mk 10:11; Lu 16:18).  If a woman is divorced illegally by her husband and she goes to another man, her husband evidently is guilty and causes the ensuing adultery (Matt 5:32). 

 

The George Howard “Hebrew Gospel of Matthew” (the Shem Tob work, cited earlier herein) seems to place the adultery blame on both the man who wrongfully divorces his wife and the later man who marries her.  Howard gives Matt 5:32 as “everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of divorce.  But concerning adultery, he is the one who commits adultery and he who takes her commits adultery.” 

 

For Matthew 19:9, Howard gives “everyone who leaves his wife and takes another, if not for adultery, commits adultery, and he who takes her who has been divorced commits adultery.” 

 

As a minimum, the man who illegally divorces his (legally married) wife, carries the blame for her adultery later when she remarries.  Hence, per Shem Tob, the charge of adultery also seems to arise with the man who marries a woman illegally divorced.  Thus, maybe both men bear guilt for adultery.  This puts a burden on both the divorcing husband and any subsequent husbands over possible adultery. 

 

Obviously, if a woman improperly divorces her husband (from a legal marriage) and goes to another man, she commits adultery (Mk 10:12).  Any man marrying an illegally divorced woman certainly commits adultery, although the guilt “may” rest with the divorcing husband, as just noted (Matt 5:32; 19:9; Lu 16:18). 

 

Finally, desertion (by an unbeliever) is perhaps a proper cause for divorce for both men and women (Ex 21:4-11; Deut 24:14; I Cor 7:15).  This is a complicated issue.  But Shaul seems to possibly allow it; and there might be some Torah support for it, in the case of a mixed marriage between a believer and an unbeliever.   

 

 

Another Jewish Teaching 

 

In the context of the above presentation, mention should be made to one interesting historical position of Judaism.  When a husband is missing for an appropriate period and presumed dead, the woman is allowed to remarry.  However, some dire consequences can ensue if the man later turns up alive. 

 

In that case, it necessitates that the woman be divorced from both husbands (“Encyclopaedia Judaica,” v. 16, p. 629).  The basis for this extreme position would seem to be the situation with Deuteronomy 24:1-4.  When the woman goes to another man, she becomes defiled to the first husband and a divorce seems mandatory. 

 

But since she is legally bound to the first husband (if he is still alive), then she becomes an adulteress with the second husband and cannot continue in marriage (and in adultery) with the second husband (see Mk 10:12; Rom 7:2); thus, necessitating another divorce.  Again, this is the Jewish position which must be considered--right or wrong. 

 

 

Casablanca 

 

This interesting Jewish position brings to mind the situation outlined in the classic movie “Casablanca,” elsewhere mentioned herein and made in 1942--just before Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin got together at Casablanca for a wartime meeting.  This famous production involved a triangle of three people. 

 

The woman was at first married to husband, number one, evidently in Eastern Europe.  The husband was understood to be dead because of political problems.  So the woman had an affair in Paris with a lover--man number two.  This second affair was serious and the two lovers were preparing to get married.  Then to the surprise of the woman, husband number one showed up alive and well. 

 

Upon learning about #1, she abandoned #2 without explanation, in order to be reconciled to #1.  This outcome is what most historic Christian sun worshippers would believe to be the right course of action.  The previously discussed Sardis churches and assemblies would particularly agree with this position since it is historic Sardis to the core. 

 

Soon, the woman and husband number one came to Casablanca in an effort to flee from his European problems.  There, in Casablanca, the woman unexpectedly runs into #2.  To complicate matters, both the woman and #2 were still passionately in love. 

 

The essence of the movie was that the woman and lover number two were torn in Casablanca over whether she should abandon number one and be reconciled to number two.  In a sense, this was the outcome which part of the audience was expected to want to happen.  But in the end, she remained with #1 to escape to another country so that he could continue his political activities. 

 

By staying with #1, the image was cast that there was a certain state of righteousness, justice and morality associated with the way things worked out.  In other words, there was allegedly a higher calling and duty in life, as opposed to what two insignificant lovers might wish in their pursuit of love, life and happiness. 

 

While a watching audience could be happy with the woman ending up with either number one or two, the essence of the Jewish teaching, outlined above, would demand that the woman abandon both one and two.  In effect, she could have neither man and should move on to a new life and hope for another husband (a number three) in the new life.  This reasoning could well be a part of Deuteronomy 24. 

 

 

Marriage & Divorce in the Sun Worship Cults 

 

Generally, it appears that “most” of the old sun worship cults had few if any restrictions on marriage, divorce and remarriage.  For certain, in the Greek and Roman sun worship societies, the available evidence suggests that many of these people were quite licentious and promiscuous. 

 

Evidently, there might have been some restrictions on marriages in some of the older cults (perhaps incest, etc).  But apparently, many sun worshippers could do many or most of the things they wanted to do on marriage and divorce (effectively, whatever they wanted to do, as is true in modern sun worshipping Christianity). 

 

It’s highly questionable that there were many real prudes on this subject in the early Western sun worship cultures (although the Chrishna worshippers were probably an exception).  Evidently, in the East (from Persia to India), the sun worshippers were a little more ascetic and would have had far more rules and restrictions on marriage and divorce than in the West. 

 

In terms of Scriptural references to the secular Roman world in Second Temple days, it is evident that marriage, divorce and remarriage actions were pretty free and unregulated, as the situation is communicated with Herod the tetrarch and Herodias (Matt 14:1-10; Mk 6:17), and the Samaritan woman who had had five husbands (Jo 4:18). 

 

Likely, it was even worse in Rome.  Certainly, ancient Greece was worse with their open homosexuality and fornication. 

 

 

Historic Marriage & Divorce in Christendom 

 

James Ballantyne Hannay, in “The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion” (p. 103-117), suggests that promiscuous sex was common place in both the old Roman Empire as well as in early Christianity.  This finding obviously leads one to believe that maybe the early Christians were as free with marriage, divorce and remarriage, as was the old sun worshipping Romans. 

 

In terms of later Christianity and the modern Christian culture, it seems that they have run the gauntlet from left to right on these themes over the centuries.  Sometimes, Christians can be awful conservative, as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, which for years has not allowed divorce or remarriage for any reason (something like one would find in the East), although they do sometimes grant an annulment. 

 

In the early days, the popes seem to have been awful stingy about passing out annulments.  But in modern times, the Vatican appears to have loosened up on the process and are granting more annulments than formerly. 

 

Even the philander Kennedys seem to be getting Catholic annulments these days.  Some persons (like perhaps Teddy Kennedy), can be married for long decades and have numbers of children; and yet, be able to get an annulment from Rome when they want to dump the old woman they are married to and go after some young stuff. 

 

As discussed in previous comments in this chapter, the modern Jews are also exploring the idea of promoting annulments to end marriages, without going through the divorce process. 

 

Protestant Christianity tried to follow Rome’s suit for awhile by not allowing any divorce and remarriage (like in the early Sardis churches).  But progressively, many Protestants began saying that adultery alone was sufficient cause for the offended partner (of either sex) to divorce the accused paramour with a right to remarry. 

 

In this instance, Christendom has taught that adultery involves the sex acts of either the man or the woman outside the marriage (in the same manner).  But even this Christian allowance has diminished and vanished for all purposes in the last 60 years. 

 

Now, the secular, Christian society and its basis in the mainline Christian denominations are going the same way of the old sun worshipping Greeks and Romans.  Vast segments of Christianity have just about abandoned all restrictions or pretext of rules on marriage, divorce and remarriage.  Many are now even allowing and/or advocating homosexual marriages. 

 

Most Christians can pretty well do whatever they want to do with little concern over theology.  Effectively, on sex, Christians generally partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, while rejecting the tree of life--just as Adam has been doing in other areas for the last 6,000 years. 

 

 

The Modern Explosion in Divorces 

 

Since liberalism and permissiveness entered the United States and Christian West in force in the post WWII days, divorces have accelerated dramatically up.  Something around 63% of US marriages now end in divorce (Dec 28, 2001, “Jerusalem Post,” p. 15).  The problem is an epidemic or endemic of the modern Christian lifestyle. 

 

Clearly, this explosion is not YHWH’s way.  The institution of marriage was manifestly intended to involve a life-long relationship--until death do us part.  But tragically, this is not the way of the Christian West here in the early 21st century. 

 

It’s bad enough that couples are divorcing, right and left, for virtually no reason or cause whatsoever.  But where children are involved in the divorce, the results are catastrophic to the kids.  It is criminal what parents do to innocent children in a divorce.  This writer must confess the hurt put on my own son in a divorce action many years ago.  It was very evil, though i believed i had some cause for my actions--even now. 

 

It isn’t only that secular people are divorcing in droves, the whole Christian community is facing the same crisis.  And remarkably, it is even affecting Sabbathkeepers--to include Sacred Namers and Identity people (who should have far more knowledge and understanding of the evils of divorce, versus the rest of pagan Christianity). 

 

In recent years, two well known couples known to me have turned to the splitting/divorce option.  A number of children were involved in each case.  One of the incidents was briefly highlighted in a former chapter.  Tragically, the woman seemed to be going through menopause.  Possibly, the man took advantage of the situation to get rid of the old woman and turn to new, young stuff. 

 

Another couple, known to me, seemed like they had a very good marriage of many, many years.  Supposedly, they both were religious and dedicated to the Sabbaths, including the annual festivals.  Yet, they separated.  In my mind, this whole thing seemed absolutely inconceivable.  Tragically, it is the real world out there today.  Truly, times have changed, and not for the better. 

 

 

Daniel Botkin, Revisited 

 

In offering the above Scriptural approaches on sex, it must be noted that there have been significant changes in thinking and ideas on sex in the last 50 years.  For example, in the Sep 2001 “Gates of Eden” (p. 3), the previously quoted Daniel Botkin noted that he grew up in America in the 1950s and 1960s.  In those days, sin existed.  But it was thought to be shameful and wrong. 

 

He added that people (then) didn’t have affairs; but they committed adultery.  Unmarried couples didn’t live together; instead, they were fornicators in sin.  There were no single moms--but there were unwed moms.  There were no single-mother-children--instead, they were bastards.  There were no gays; but there were homosexuals, sodomites and queers. 

 

The point is that times have changed in America--and not for the good! 

 

 

Some Final Words 

 

Any discussion on the questions of divorce and remarriage seems to be complicated--perhaps because the Word does not clearly bring all the applicable texts together in one setting and explanation.  As a minimum, it is a serious issue since YHWH has declared that He hates divorce.  So any person involved in this business must tread very cautiously to avoid sin. 

 

Romans 7:1-3 has been briefly cited above.  In the sense that the sex act can seemingly constitute a form of marriage, the words of Romans 7 become quite profound if taken singularly without regard to other texts.  Certainly, there is no denying that a marriage places a tremendous linkage between a man and woman.  Per The ELOHIM, it is to be a life experience (and thus, severable only by death). 

 

If the sex act does constitute a form of marriage, then it becomes clear that the girl/woman who loses her virginity becomes linked to the man who takes her.  In which case, the question must next surface--does the woman so involved become linked to death with the man who takes her virginity? 

 

Finally, a first reading of Romans 7:1-3 may be taken to open the door to the possibility that while divorce might be legally allowed (in the Scriptures), there is no inherent remarriage right for a woman to avoid adultery--since the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.  The Jewish position is that a legal divorce automatically implies the legal right of remarriage (which seems right, per Deut 24:1-4). 

 

This writer is not totally sure of the answers here on the application of Romans 7:1-3.  But again, the whole subject of sex is one to be very careful and cautious about in life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 249--Sun Worship and Children

 

 

Children 

 

A most important purpose of marriage is the production of children, as YHWH commanded the Adam kind long ago (Gen 3:16; 9:1).  But like all the other conditions of Babylonian confusion persisting in the modern, Christian, sun worship culture, the raising of children is in a state of pandemonium and crisis.  Something is grossly wrong and certainly in modern America. 

 

 

An Illustration of Parental Failure 

 

Subsequent chapters will broach the matter of media bias and how reporters and editors twist, subvert and mislead American people on important issues.  Crime and the reporting on crime will be assessed, in particular.  The controlled media has a political agenda (which it pushes) and not upon reporting news (thus, almost anything on guns receives enormous coverage while other criminal acts are often ignored). 

 

In any case, “Newsweek” magazine of Aug 28, 2000 (p. 32), did carry a story about a death of a child which did not involve guns.  This one was by Andrew Murr and Karen Springen on “Death at a Very Early Age.” 

 

This report was on the suffocation murder of small, three-year-old Damion Stiffer at the hands of his six-year-old sister and another girl who was five years old in Blythe, California.  As Murr and Springen wrote it, the two girls apparently planned on killing Damion in advance by drowning him or suffocating him (although they had no particular motive for wanting to kill the boy). 

 

It appears that their opportunity for murder surfaced when they were playing out of doors at their grandmother’s house.  They pushed little Damion face down into a mud puddle in the yard and tried to drown him in the muddy water.  He struggled free and their efforts failed. 

 

So one of the little girls ran into the house and brought back a pillow.  They put the pillow over Damion’s face and held it there until he stopped struggling and was dead.  The grandmother told authorities that “They got to playing too rough, (and) it got out of hand.” 

 

A “Newsweek” reporter called at the grandmother’s home after the incident to see the little, six-year-old sister.  She came out of doors to meet the reporter.  Without saying hello or anything else, she kicked the reporter in the shins.  Obviously, this little girl is a terror and had had little in the way of proper child raising! 

 

A look at the background of these children reveals the real tragedy.  The father was a druggy and wife abuser.  The couple were separated and getting a divorce.  Little Damion and his sister and some other children were in the care of the paternal grandmother (who also, by chance, had a drug problem). 

 

There is no denying that at least the little six-year-old sister had problems.  One developmental behavior specialist suggested that she had been harmed herself--either purposefully, neglectfully or vicariously by witnessing violence to others. 

 

As a minimum, these children had received little in the way of parental instruction, teaching and guidance.  Certainly, the little girl was undisciplined.  Probably, she (and likely her little brother as well) spent most of their lives either watching their parents fight or watching violence and vulgarity over the TV screen.  The other little girl apparently knew nothing likewise, except how to act like a wild animal. 

 

For sure, some proper teaching and example in the home could have prevented this tragedy.  As a minimum, the children needed a loving and caring mother at home, watching after them and their activities.  Obviously too, the wild, undisciplined little girl needed to have a whipping on occasion to rein in her animal instincts.  She needed to be taught some manners, humility and love. 

 

 

Modern Permissiveness

 

One of the primary problems facing the current sun worship culture has been the introduction of permissiveness into the raising of children.  Children are just not taught to obey and to obey instantly under the threat of physical punishment if they disobey. 

 

Modern sun worshippers are utterly ignorant about the Scriptures which teach the disciplining and physical punishment of children to mold and make them proper persons when they reach maturity (Prov 3:11-12; 29:17; Jer 10:24; I Cor 11:31-32; Heb 12:5-6). 

 

There used to be a belief among some individuals that the Book says something about sparing the rod and spoiling the child.  That remark is not in the Scriptures.  But the Word does have some powerful statements on the subject of discipline which are very close to it in meaning. 

 

For example, he that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (Prov 13:24); that the rod of correction drives foolishness from a child (Prov 22:15); that the rod grants wisdom (Prov 29:15-16); and that using the rod doesn’t mean death for the child, but rather, it grants him deliverance from the grave (Prov 23:13-14). 

 

 

Discipline Works 

 

In the religious Islamic state, thieves have their hands cut off.  It is absolutely amazing, but the word gets out and people in such a culture do not steal. 

 

Travelers to Saudi Arabia (where Black genes are sufficiently heavy in the population to promote many petty crimes) are acutely aware of the fact that a person can leave money, valuables, etc in a hotel room and come back later and they are still there.  The people live in a certain fear of extreme punishment for stealing. 

 

The disciplining of children must start early.  Parents can’t sit on their duffs and do nothing until kids are teenagers and then expect to all of a sudden make them mind.  For sure, discipline must start certainly from one to three years of age.  If a child is properly broke (to understand that they must obey father and mother) at age two or three, there will likely be no further problems (Prov 19:18). 

 

As little babies start growing, they quickly begin developing self will (discussed earlier, as pride).  If parents allow this self will to persist, it will only grow stronger.  Early on, the child must have that self will broken and crushed so that the parents’ “will” will always prevail over the child’s will.  In other words, there is an early contest between parents and the child over will and authority. 

 

The parents must quickly win this contest with the child.  If the parents lose this battle of will with the child early on, then it is an almost impossible process to ever gain authority over the child in later years as the child grows into the teens.  It is imperative that discipline starts early, strongly and effectively.  The child must rapidly learn that it is the parents’ will which must prevail. 

 

 

The Purpose 

 

The purpose of discipline and using the rod of correction is not to kill or injure children.  The purpose is to teach them the presence of standards, laws and rules which they must obey (specifically the laws and rules of the parents).  The rod of correction properly used on a child will not kill or injure a child (Prov 23:13). 

 

A little slap on the hands of a one or two-year-old does wonders when the child is told “no,” as he/she reaches for something.  The punishment can increase as the child grows older and particularly if he/she persists in disobedience.  Very early, the child must learn that no means no.  Small children will begin testing the parents early on to see what all they can get away with.  That’s why discipline must be swift and sure. 

 

The bottom line is that children are commanded to honor parents (Ex 20:12) and to obey parents (Jer 35:18; Eph 6:1).  Disobedient and rebellious children face a death penalty, to be administered by the state in terms of the theocracy (Deut 21:18-21).  This reality means that parents have a moral duty to deserve that honor and to properly administer discipline early on in a child’s life. 

 

The prophet Yeshayahu saw the stupidity, evil and wickedness of the age ending Israelites when he wrote that children would be their oppressors and that children and women would rule over them (Isa 3:4, 12). 

 

A person can go into almost any retail store in the present sun worship society and see any number of rebellious and disobedient children roaming the aisles and often causing trouble or creating problems for the store.  Sometimes, a mother will tell the child to not do something.  Often, the kid goes right ahead and does it and looks at the mother in disrespect and contempt.  This is not the Scriptural way. 

 

The mother should only have to speak one time and the child should know to immediately obey.  In fact, disobedience can allow a child to go off on his or her own to be injured, hurt or even kidnapped, molested or murdered. 

 

Any time a rebellious child ignores a parent, the parent should take the kid outdoors and use the rod long and hard enough until the child gets the message that he or she is supposed to obey.  Every time disobedience surfaces, physical punishment must surely come and come quickly.  

 

Yes, punishment must come with force and soon in order to be effective.  It cannot be unnecessarily delayed or done in weakness.  It is absolutely amazing what can be accomplished with a small, limber, peach limb on the legs or uncovered bottom (too much covering will render the switch ineffective) of a rebellious three year old child.  It only takes about five or six hard swats. 

 

 

The Parental Dilemma 

 

Beyond the presence of permissiveness and the failure of parents to impose discipline on children, there is a very adverse condition in most of sun worshipping America which further acts to insure that children get little or nothing in terms of parental supervision. 

 

“The Washington Times” of Nov 29-Dec 5, 1999 (p. 1, 23), had an AP article on “Married with children now far from the norm in the U.S.” which told of the tragedy that has come upon modern American families.  As the report’s title indicated, family units used to involve a married couple with children.  But that standard has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. 

 

The story offered some statistics which drove home the point.  In 1972, 73% of children lived in a household with their two parents.  In 1998, only 51% of children lived in a household with two parents. 

 

From 1972 to 1998, the number of households without children doubled to 33%.  Children living with one parent in 1972 was 4.7%, while the numbers increased to 18.2% in 1998.  Obviously, something is fundamentally wrong in America. 

 

While the report recognized the reality of divorce, as being the primary culprit in the dilemma, there are manifestly other stimuli also busy promoting the destruction of the family and the lack of parental supervision for children. 

 

 

The Elian Gonzalez Case 

 

In November 1999, a six year old Cuban boy was plucked out of the Atlantic Ocean.  He had been on a small raft or boat from Cuba with his mother and step father and other people who were trying to make it to the US.  The boat sank and only Elian survived.  The US immigration people correctly said that Elian should be returned to Cuba to be reunited with his real father, who wanted him back. 

 

With the custodial mother dead, there is no question about it whatsoever.  This child belongs with his father.  The same situation applies to any and all other children.  First, they need both parents.  But in a divorce and with the death of the custodial parent, the child should be reunited with the surviving parent, unless there is some cogent reason preventing it.  In Elian’s case, the father loved him and had a bond with him. 

 

Immediately, the controlled US media and the Cuban community in Florida began a campaign to keep Elian here in the US, despite the plain Scriptural need for the child to be united with his father.  Day upon day, the US media bombarded the airways with this story, as if it was the most important event in world news.  Even US presidential candidates came out in support of him staying in the US. 

 

Of course, the gullible, ignorant public began to accept all of the media hype and disinformation.  A vast share of the population soon believed that the child should be kept in the US.  The US Congress issued a subpoena and a state circuit court imposed an injunction to try to keep him here. US actions, delays and court manipulations infuriated the Cuban government and people. 

 

The one thing that no one was interested in was what was right for the child.  He belonged with his real father.  Finally, the Justice Department terrorized the boy in the middle of the night (which was wrong--the way it was carried out) and seized him and returned him to his father to await the court action.  In late June 2000, Elian and his father finally were able to return to Cuba (after seven months of US interference). 

 

 

The Tax Problem 

 

Other comments herein focus upon the role of women and how they have been forced by high and excessive taxation (at the 60% level) into the work place, instead of being at home and raising and caring for their children.  This whole motion has been absolutely disastrous for children. 

 

An article on “Taxes-Threat to Family,” in the April 3-16, 1998, “Trade N’ Save” paper, noted that when both parents must work (in order to pay the excessive taxes), the time and energy that would necessarily go into parenting go, by definition, into the workplace. 

 

Children, in the meantime, rather than receiving stimulation and encouragement from their parents, are now receiving those qualities from day care centers, after school providers, video games, and afternoon television fare that gives pablum a good name. 

 

The article also said that with all this competing stimuli, without the anchor of constant parental involvement, is it any wonder that one of the most prevalent medical “maladies,” especially among boys, is “attention deficit disorder”?  The interesting thing about this is that few people seem to have any idea at all about what is happening to them and their children.  Even fewer care one way or the other. 

 

Not only are the children being brainwashed into becoming walking zombies, as will be later assessed in comments on outcome based education, but virtually the entire American society (certainly under the age of 50) has followed the same path of lethargic indifference and apathy. 

 

 

Educating Children 

 

Later chapters herein will focus on the modern education institutions and teachers and specifically what all they are doing to America’s school children and particularly in the context of outcome based education and Goals 2000.  But since education is so closely linked to parental responsibilities for children, a few remarks need to be shared at this time. 

 

In modern Anglo-Saxon-Celtic lands, there is a significant motion underway to take children away from parents or at least take their loyalty, love, respect and teaching away from parents.  Actually, this motion has been underway for years now with the great emphasis on public education--which has turned out to be a monster of the worst kind, as will be later demonstrated. 

 

In an article on “But Not Murderers,” in Vol 2 of “Scriptures for America,” Christian Identity leader Pete Peters correctly zeroed in on the problem.  He wrote that the job of educating children is not for the state.  He noted that free government public schools are not provided for in the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Scriptures (OT or NT). 

 

Peters perceptively pointed out that the concept of government run, public schools is found in only one place.  He noted that they are provided for in the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto.  Since the Communist Manifesto has largely become reality in modern America and the Christian West in the past 70 years, it makes sense that there would be an obsession over public schools. 

 

In short, the concept of free government schools is not a part of YHWH’s kingdom plans or any of the several documents that legitimately founded the United States (“Scriptures for America,” p. 4, Vol 2).  Instead, the education of a child belongs to the family-parents, certain religious institutions and the individual (in the form of self education). 

 

Yes, Peters has it right.  Parents, not the state, have a moral duty and responsibility to educate their children.  Shlomo wrote it well when he said (for parents) to train up (teach) a child (correctly) in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it (Prov 22:6). 

 

One of the great mitzwot in the Torah is the need for parents to teach the Torah to children (Deut 6:7).  Judaism has an interesting slant on this mitzwah.  In the Oct-Dec 2000 “Petah Tikvah” (p. 17), Rick Aharon Chaimberlin outlines the Jewish position that indeed parents must teach the Torah to their children and that parents carry the responsibility for the actions of their children. 

 

However, when a child reaches an acceptable level of maturity (age 13 for boys at Bar Mitzwot and age 12 for girls at Bat Mitzwot, or perhaps age 10 or so, per the Word, as described in a previous chapter), children become legally responsible for their own actions.  Probably, this is also the place where children must assume some personal responsibility for self education (as outlined in the above remarks of Peters). 

 

Two more features of the religious Jews’ concept of education was brought out in an article by Caley Ben-David on “Teaching English on Mars,” in the Jul 6, 2001, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 27).  This story was about the Satmar Hassidic sect of Ultra Orthodox in Brooklyn, NY.  In this community, the attitude is that school is an extension of the home and the focus is on the Torah and the Hebrew language (and not English). 

 

 

Home Schooling 

 

Assuredly, the education of children is a prime responsibility of parents.  It is the parents who have a moral duty before The ELOHIM to educate their children--just as it is their duty to provide for their children.  It is a tragedy that modern, sun worshipping people believe that it is a duty and responsibility of the state to both provide for children and to educate them. 

 

In this new modern view of children in the contemporary, sun worship civilization, men and women are like barnyard animals, whose only function is to breed and produce children (in a factory approach), who become subjects (workers) for the state or the large multi-national corporations. 

 

As just noted, future chapters will discuss the public schools (and now even many of the private schools) and their goals of teaching outcome based education.  As will be illustrated in these future presentations on outcome based education, it is absolutely contrary and hostile to the Scriptures. 

 

By recognizing and being alert to the facts of education reality in the present, wicked, sun worship culture, parents should come to grips with their personal responsibility to teach their children.  Yes, the responsibility for educating and teaching a child rests with the child’s parents and not the government or state. 

 

In this context, home schooling by parents has been a coming thing in America in the last ten years or so.  Significantly, one finds people more interested in the home schooling of children in some of the Western and Southern states, as opposed to the Northeast and Midwest areas.  This reality must be relevant. 

 

There are any number of private, commercial businesses which develop and sell home school materials to the public.  Some of this stuff is good, while some of it is questionable.  Hence, a parent must exercise some discretion and care in selecting this material.  But this can be done. 

 

 

Home Schoolers Do Well 

 

Above all else, many home schoolers learn academics which cannot be said for public education.  The “Spotlight” paper of Aug 30, 1999, reported that home schooled teens scored higher on a national assessment test used by colleges and universities than other conventionally schooled children. 

 

Home schoolers scored a 22.7 out of a possible 30, while the national average is 21 out of 30.  The “Spotlight” of Sep 4, 2000 (p. 2), had a follow up report along the same lines--of home schoolers far exceeding the achievements of children from public schools in college entrance exams. 

 

Home schooled children placed first, second and third in Scripps Howard’s annual national spelling bee in 2000.  Again, in 2001, a home schooled child (Sean Coney of Atoka, MN) won the national spelling bee (Jun 25, 2001, “Spotlight,” p. 2). 

 

The Jun 3, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news item that there were 55 finalists out of five million children who participated in the 2002 National Geographic Bee.  Of the 55, twelve were home schooled. 

 

The Apr 9, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. 2) had a news report on a thirteen-year-old girl named Sarah who had just completed one year of college at the Hagerstown, MD Community College.  Sarah was home schooled.  This writer is acquainted with two teen age girls (about 14 and 16) who were home schooled.  The older girl is in college at age 16.  Home schoolers are increasingly winning spelling bees and scoring high on tests. 

 

 

Big Brother Opposes Home Schooling 

 

Obviously, the Big Brother state is totally opposed to home schooling.  Big Brother has pulled out all the stops in many states in an effort to eradicate and eliminate the practice.  Home schooling throws the liberals and ruling Amalekites into a frenzy (because they want to control the education of children).  Some states have laws on the books which make it almost impossible for parents to home school their children. 

 

And above all else, the establishment and its institutions (like the media, the PTAs and the school teachers’ unions) are going all out to condemn, criticize and belittle home schooling.  They have constantly looked for excuses to use to oppose home schooling. 

 

Since they can’t attack home schooling on academic grounds (as the public schools have utterly failed to teach basic academic subjects--like reading, writing and arithmetic), they have tried to claim that children need to interact with other children (as if that interaction must come about in the confines of the public schools; whereas in fact, children can play with and interact with other children in any number of other environments). 

 

The point of this is that parents have a duty and responsibility to train, educate and teach their children.  In this sense, they need to pull their heads out of the sand in terms of what is happening to their children in modern America (as will be described in some detail in succeeding chapters).  Once parents understand how bad the public (and many private) schools are, they must consider the option of home schooling. 

 

 

The Modern Feminist Movement 

 

The modern feminist movement of taking women out of their homes and forcing or encouraging them to leave their homes and domestic lives to enter the workplace has been briefly noted in a prior chapter and will be further discussed in a subsequent chapter which addresses feminism.  But this condition is tragic for small children who are left at home or neglected because their mother is not around to do her duty. 

 

While there are many illustrations of this tragedy, perhaps one of the most penetrating and pathetic examples happened in March 2000. 

 

On or about Mar 22, 2000, a man in Norfolk, Virginia was killed in a traffic accident.  He didn’t have any ID with a current address.  So it took police three days to locate his residence.  News reports on Mar 25, 2000, said that when police went to his home, they found two little girls--one two years old and the other 14 months old.  The two year old was trying to feed herself and her sister while their dad was away. 

 

Where was the mother in this pitiful and tragic scenario.  Yes, the mother was in the US Navy and at sea on an aircraft carrier. 

 

There is a moral to this true story.  This is not YHWH’s way.  That mother belonged at home with her children.  The father should have been the provider for his family.  What a warped, pathetic situation the modern feminists have created in America. 

 

 

Another Child Neglect Case 

 

Though many or indeed most women leaving small children at home or in day care facilities involve women who have entered the work place (because of necessity, the high taxes and/or the influence and motivation of the modern feminist movement), there are other tragic cases of simple child neglect and abuse. 

 

Possibly, one of the more tragic cases of a stupid woman and her neglect of her children arose in January 2003. 

 

The Jan 10, 2003, Spokane “Spokesman-Review” (p. A7) had a story from Placentia, California and the brains of an apparent Chinese woman named Janet Chen, age 31.  Janet had two small children--one boy, age 4, and a girl, age 7.  But Janet was more concerned with doing her own thing than taking care of the children. 

 

Someway and somehow she played on the Internet and made contact with a man in North Carolina--whom she either just wanted sex with; or perhaps, held out hope of finding a husband; or alternatively, something else. 

 

In any case, Janet decided to leave California and go to North Carolina for a rendezvous and meeting with the man.  Thence she simply walked off and left her small children.  Supposedly, there was some frozen food in the refrigerator.  Janet instructed the kids that if someone came to their apartment the children were to hide. 

 

Sure enough, three weeks passed and the kids were cold, scared, hungry and in great hurt.  In their despair and pain, they started crying.  A neighbor woman heard the cries and alerted police.  The police came to the apartment (the door was unlocked) and entered to find the two kids hiding in the bedroom. 

 

In the meantime, Janet’s trip to North Carolina produced no husband.  So she returned to California.  She was arrested for child endangerment and held on $25,000 bond. 

 

 

Abortions 

 

In the context of children, the current sun worship culture has went goofy over the so-called women’s right to abortions.  The US Supreme Court entered this controversy when it expanded its powers by legislating for the benefit of liberal women and other social leaders in America. 

 

While there is a lot of hype from the liberals on this theme, it seems that no one can recognize that this issue belongs to the US states under the tenth amendment to the US Constitution.  It should never have been a topic of concern at the US national level.  When the Supreme Court legislated on the subject, it did so contrary to the US Constitution and the tenth amendment. 

 

Anytime some of the right wing Christian fundamentalists and Catholic Christians try to question the practice or limit it, the ruling authorities frequently use the excuse that it is necessary to protect the health of the woman getting the abortion, despite the fact that the woman’s health is hardly ever an issue in an abortion.  Yes, the problem is unwanted babies. 

 

Some people believe that this abortion mania is nothing but infant murder and particularly so in those situations called partial birth abortions of the third trimester (where the baby’s body is pulled out with its head still in the woman and the infant’s skull is stabbed and the brain suctioned out to kill it). 

 

One should not be too dismayed over the prospect that an unwanted baby would come on the scene to generate murder.  News reports were ablaze in the Fourth Scriptural month of 1997 with information from New Jersey that a pregnant 18-year-old girl was at a dance. 

 

It came time for this young girl to deliver her baby.  So she went into the bath room and had the baby by herself.  Apparently, she didn’t want it.  Thus, she proceeded to strangle the child, toss it in a garbage can and return to the dance to frolic and have fun.  These late term, partial birth abortions aren’t much different. 

 

The mother doesn’t want the baby.  So, rather than murder it outright, herself, she merely goes to a medical doctor--where he can legally murder the child without a whimper from the establishment.  Not only has the establishment failed to protest these killings, but it has assumed the prerogative to encourage and promote them with full government approval and funding. 

 

 

Leviticus 18:21 

 

Could this abortion practice link in some way to the old sun worship child sacrifice acts, outlined in the Word?  On this line of thought, it would be well to revisit Leviticus 18 where The ELOHIM outlined the various sex sins (including incest, miscegenation, adultery etc) of the Canaanites which sentenced them to death and precipitated their removal from the land. 

 

That listing by Moshe included a reference to children being sacrificed or passed through (“the fire” is not in the Hebrew text) to Molech (Lev 18:21).  Is it possible that that text has been listed with the Canaanites’ sex sins because many pregnancies and children from those sins were unwanted and were aborted in some fashion or killed upon being born? 

 

Does that sound like modern America?  If this historical event from the Scriptures can be applied in some manner to modern America, what does this spell for the future of the United States and her people?  Will YHWH spew the people out of this land? 

 

Interestingly, the Book prescribes the death penalty to both an Israelite man or woman and the behemah involved when they illegally copulate contrary to The ELOHIM’s law (Ex 22:19).  Obviously, the Canaanites had been committing that precise crime (Lev 18:23).  Perhaps, in some instances, a Canaanite woman so involved would choose to kill her mongrel baby. 

 

Furthermore, it might well be that the Canaanite practice of child murder (to possibly include various types of abortions) extended to cover all kinds of sex in their culture--both legal and illegal.  Perhaps the people had become so licentious that their sun worship society was a free sex culture where there were no restrictions--much like modern America.  Thus, unwanted babies were sometimes killed. 

 

 

More Scriptures on the Problem 

 

Just after linking these child killings to the Canaanites, Moshe went on to command the Israelites to not give up their seeds to Molech, under penalty of death, with a further addition that if the Israelites allowed this evil practice to exist without imposing the death penalty, then the guilty observing Israelites would be cut off and punished (Lev 20:2-5). 

 

Incidentally, the evil Israelites picked up on much of the wickedness of the Canaanites and in time began to repeat their practices of child sacrifices to Molech or Moloch (Jer 32:35; Amos 5:26).  In NT days, Stephen made mention of the fact that the House of Yisrael had linked up with Molech as well (Acts 7:43). 

 

At this junction, it would be well to look carefully at this Moloch or Molech god.  Young’s “Analytical Concordance” (p. 666) indicates that he was a god of the Ammonites, also called Milcom, Malcam and Malcan.  A Prophecy Club speaker named Jeff Baker says that Molech was the “god of pleasure” (per “Cheque Mate: Game of Princes” video). 

 

Is it not likely that the worship of Molech or Moloch involved illicit and promiscuous sexual acts?  Could unwanted pregnancies have then ensued?  Is it not probable that depraved Israelites would have welcomed an opportunity to abort such pregnancies or murder the infants immediately at birth (as is effectively done today in the partial birth abortions)? 

 

Consequently, there could well be some connections between the evil of modern Israelites with that of their ancestors.  The MOST HIGH is not careless and irresponsible in His Word.  There has to be a reason why He chose to include those child murder condemnations in that section of Leviticus, dealing with the sex sins of the Canaanites.