Issued: 7/21/23

PLEASE NOTE:  Because Bible versions sometimes differ from each other in crucial ways, the version quoted here will be the one that best clarifies the point being made.  For a quick comparison between versions, please go to: http://www.biblehub.com.

   All bracketed material may be authorial comments, attempts at proper syntax, or minimal rewordings of Scripture for the sake of clarity and continuity.  These emendations will not be italicized.

   The “/” will be used to signify “and/or.”  The symbol “↔” is used to connect verses corroborating each other and so establishing doctrinal truths (Matthew 18:16↔2Corinthians 13:1).

   In differentiating between Yahweh of hosts [later Jesus] and Yahweh the Most High God, lower case letters have been used when discussing the former; upper case letters are reserved for the One and Most High God.  Since Jesus was at pains to differentiate himself from God the Father, we have followed his lead here.

   The term neo-Christians will be used to differentiate between false Christians and Jesus’ true followers.

   One of the dogmas embedded in modern ‘Christian values’ is the notion that the family that prays together stays together.  Prayer is not the ‘glue’ that binds kinfolk:  Faith is; and for faith to be effective it has to be experienced, understood, and acted upon—since faith without works is dead (James 2:26)—by all family members to the same degree.¹  On grounds of Matthew 10:34-36 this is impossible.  Jesus made it very clear that he had come to wage spiritual war and that his doctrine would pit relatives against each other to the point of enmity:  “A man’s [or woman’s] enemies will be the members of his [her] own household.”

   The problem with Judeo-Christians is that they want their cake and eat it too; since family is paramount to them, they have come to believe that God is tickled pink by their loyalty toward relatives.  Yet this has been one of Satan’s great successes amongst mankind, one of the ‘fiery’ darts (Ephesians 6:16) that has struck bull’s-eye in men’s hearts.  As far as God is concerned—judging by Deuteronomy 10:17; 2Chronicles 19:7; Job 34:19; Matthew 5:45; 1Peter 1:17 and others, the only family He recognizes is the family of faith (Ephesians 4:1-6), composed of worshippers worldwide irrespective of ethnicity, gender, nationality, or shared DNA who submit to His discipline in order to become His legitimate, spiritual offspring (Acts 10:34-35; Galatians 3:28; Hebrews 12:5-8,10).  Everybody else might not count; for anybody who prioritizes parents, espouses, siblings, children, or even one’s life over Him and Jesus is unworthy of them (Luke 14:26; John 14:24).  They are uncompromising when it comes to issues of loyalty and commitment (James 1:6-8; Revelation 3:15-16).

   Matthew 10:36 borrows from Micah 7:5-6, who had added, “Do not trust in a neighbor; do not have confidence in a friend.² From her who lies in your bosom, guard your lips.  For son treats father contemptuously; daughter rises up against her mother; daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”  It can be seen that Micah covered all ‘households,’ though he was breaking no new ground.  Not to trust neighbors or friends?  Jeremiah 9:4-5.  Not to count on flesh and blood?  Deuteronomy 28:54-56; Matthew 10:21; 2Timothy 3:1-5.  Not to trust church and state?  Psalms 146:3; Zephaniah 3:3-4.  When push came to shove and one’s survival was at stake, neither blood, friendship nor allegiance to institutions would prove thicker than water.

   For ‘household’ as Jesus used it applies to any setting where the person of true faith is at odds with the beliefs of his/her peers—families, synagogue/church congregants, or fellow-citizens.  So had been Joseph’s case (Genesis 37:8-10), David’s (1Samuel 17:28), and Jeremiah’s (Jeremiah 38:1-4).  Jesus was living proof that “a prophet is without honor only in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own home” (Mark 6:4):  Jews ridiculed him (Matthew 11:19); his own brothers doubted him (John 7:5); his Nazarene provenance discredited his messianic bona fides (John 1:45-46); and the religious powers that be wanted him dead (John 11:49-53).

   It is not without meaning that familial pitfalls were implicit in Genesis 3-4.  Eve prevailed on Adam to eat the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6); and in this Adam exemplified the danger Paul saw in marriage:  “One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about…[pleasing] his wife, and his interests are divided” (1Corinthians 7:32-34).  Eve could have sent Satan packing, but she was more into women’s lib than the marital obedience the Bible championed (Ephesians 5:22; 1Peter 3:1); so she, like her modern counterparts, led ‘hubby’ by the nose and damned both in the process.

   For his part Cain did things his way, figuring that any sort of holocaust to God would do fine.  So being a farmer, he offered crops to Yahweh, who was not at all pleased by Cain’s produce (Genesis 4:2-4).  Abel, on the other hand, acting on knowledge that was later codified into Mosaic Law, offered the first-born, fattest of his sheep—in short, primo stuff as Yahweh commanded (Genesis 4:4↔Exodus 13:2,12; Leviticus 1:3).  Cain could have asked Abel for one of his sheep to offer; but he exemplified what Ecclesiastes 4:4 warned:  The excellence of one’s work awakens envy in others.³  Not for Cain losing face; better split open Abel’s skull and get on with business without any sense of remorse or accountability (Genesis 4:6-9).  And like all perpetrators who obey no law when committing their crimes, Cain appealed for leniency in his case (Genesis 4:13-15).

   Implicit in these events are the foundations of Christian doctrine:  Adam and Eve symbolizing Jesus and his Church (Ephesians 5:22-24,30-32); Abel as God’s shepherd who is undone by his brother (Matthew 26:14-16↔Psalms 55:12-14); the idea of Jesus as the Lamb of God whose blood must be shed for the remission of sins (John 1:29; 1Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews (9:22-26; 1Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 5:5-6, 13:8, 21:22);⁴ and the prohibition that retribution upon evildoers was never to be exacted except by God (Deuteronomy 32:35; Matthew 13:27-30; Luke 9:54-55; Romans 12:19).

   Now let us concentrate on family issues.

Family from Old Testament Perspectives

   Judaism can be excused for prioritizing family, since throughout most of the Old Testament the overarching concern was to breed descendants.  First we have those endless ‘begat’ lists.  Genesis 5 traces Adam’s descendants for thousands of years until Noah, in whose 600^th year a Flood came leaving him, wife, three sons, and three daughters-in-law as sole world survivors.  From Noah’s children the world was repopulated (Genesis 10:1-32), giving rise to new family trees leading up to Abraham’s birth (Genesis 11:10-27).

   Abraham [then called Abram] is the pivotal point in the Judeo-Christian saga, because it was on his ability to believe wholeheartedly in Yahweh’s promise (Genesis 15:5-6↔Mark 11:23; John 8:56) that he became the faith-father of every faithful thereafter; conceived in Jesus—not Isaac, the seed in whom all the nations of the world would be blessed (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:7,16,18↔Hebrews 6:13-18).  It is important that we do not canonize Abraham like Jewish scholars do, because he had more demerits than brownie points in his favor, married as he was to his half-sister and endangering her to protect his hide (Genesis 12:11-13, 20:12↔Leviticus 18:9,11, 20:17)—personal choices for which others had to suffer (Genesis 12:17-19, 20:2,17-18).  Perhaps this is why Paul, though recognizing the value of Abraham’s faith, had a lower regard for his earthly merits (Romans 4:2).

   With Abraham begin Jesus’ genealogical trees:  Matthew’s according to Jesus’ ministerial lineage (Matthew 1:1-17) through the apostate but Temple-building Solomon (Matthew 1:6); and Luke’s according to Jesus’ spiritual lineage (Luke 3:23-34) through Nathan (Luke 3:21-32↔1Chronicles 3:5, 14:4).  Solomon was shadow to Jesus’ substance as the son of David who would build God’s house (1Kings 8:18-19↔1Chronicles 22:8-9); for even Solomon knew his Temple was a way-station to access the Most High God Who would never dwell in man-made buildings (1Kings 8:27,30,32,34,36,39,43,45,49↔Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7:47-48, 17:24).

   To get from Genesis to the birth of Jesus, child-bearing and rearing were essential:  There had to be a population—though not strictly Jewish—from which time and again worthy people were set aside (1Kings 19:18; Isaiah 10:22; Jeremiah 50:20; Ezekiel 6:8; Joel 2:32).  With Genesis 38:7-9 began the custom of raising issue for departed, childless brothers, later encoded into Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 25:5-6).  This practice in no way contradicted Leviticus 18:16, which applied only while the brother was alive; but it did set the foundation for raising spiritual issue for Jesus, the departed, childless brother of all Christians—not through sex but religious conversion.

   Up to Jeremiah’s time, ‘begetting’ was the norm; and since the Babylonian Captivity following the fall of Jerusalem would last 70 years, Yahweh of hosts instructed Judean captives to “build houses and live in them; and plant gardens and eat their produce.  Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease” (Jeremiah 29:5-6).  But Jeremiah himself, facing the city’s destruction, was given a different message:  “You shall not take a wife for yourself nor have sons or daughters in this place.  For…the sons and daughters born in this place… their mothers who bear them, and their fathers who beget them in this land…will die of deadly diseases, they will not be lamented or buried; they will be as dung on the surface of the ground and come to an end by sword and famine, and their carcasses will become food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the earth” (Jeremiah 16:2-4).  All of this sounds familiar, does it not?  The Great Tribulation—a time it would be better to forgo conceiving children (Matthew 24:19↔Deuteronomy 28:56-57; Lamentations 2:20-21, 4:10)—followed by the Last Judgment’s aftermath.

   Jeremiah is of particular importance to Christians, since he offers a window into future Christendom’s apostasies and downfall.  He preached to Judeans, David’s and Jesus’ tribe (1Chronicles 28:4; Hebrews 7:14); and in particular to Jerusalem’s inhabitants,⁵ Yahweh’s beloved city and site of His Temple (2Chronicles 6:5-6), both of which are shadow to Christian substances (Colossians 2:9; Ephesians 5:23; Galatians 4:26; Revelation 21:1-3).  Jeremiah was the only prophet railing against the cult of a heavenly queen—which in Christianity was revived as Marian worship (Jeremiah 44:16-27).  While Judean males were singled out for destruction because of it, females had been instrumental in their transgression:  “When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her” (Jeremiah 44:19)?

   A case of Eve tripping Adam all over again; but besides the obvious correlation, we must think symbolically as well.  Paul laid the background for us: Adam was not deceived; Eve was:  She was the weakest link in God’s chain of command.  Paul ‘got’ the message:  Female symbols should not prevail over male ones, for whereas God and Jesus chose males to do their work, who but the ‘crafty serpent’ (Genesis 3:1↔Revelation 20:2) would be recruiting females to do his work?  Thus we see that female symbols, whether in the form of prostituted synagogues/churches (Jeremiah 5:7; Revelation 17:1-6), adulterous cities (Jeremiah 3:6-10; Ezekiel 16:3-34; Hosea 7:1-7; Revelation 18:2,10), pagan goddesses under Marian guises, or even wives are vectors for satanic deceptions—let alone modern additions:  Female preachers whose bona fides the Holy Spirit invalidates (1Corinthians 14:33-35; 1Timothy 2:14; 2Peter 1:20-21).

   Perhaps in relation to this Jesus went out of his way to marginalize  Mary and brothers (Mark 3:31-35); and knowing full well how in future his human ‘mother’ would be deified, he comes across in Scripture as impatient and dismissive of Mary even as she grieved for him at the foot of his cross (John 2:4, 19:26).⁶  It is not that he did not care for her, because for Jesus love was second nature (Mark 10:21); but given Marian dogma and all its snares, imagine how more justified her worship would have been had Jesus exalted her in his lifetime—as men do with their own mothers.  It is telling that the Third Commandment is about ‘honoring’, not ‘loving’, one’s earthly parents (Exodus 20:12), while God is acknowledged as the only true Father (Matthew 23:9) Who must be loved above all beings by all men with all their might (Mark 12:30).  Which is not unreasonable, since parents contribute DNA responsible for a soulless body, whereas God contributes the soul that animates it (Ecclesiastes 12:7; John 6:63; James 2:26)—let alone sustaining our very existence and planning to reward us beyond what human parents are capable of ever doing for us (Jeremiah 29:11).

   So when it came to Jesus, he could not focus loyalty on kinfolk while serving a God for Whom the family of faith was the priority.  Jesus also knew he had to die (Matthew 26:52-54; John 13:1, 16:28), so in the shadow-substance duality of the Old Testament, he was the childless, elder brother whose male siblings were tasked with giving him offspring.  Moreover Jesus was also the husband of a spiritual bride (Isaiah 54:5↔Mark 2:19), the Judeo-Christian Church, a mystical construct rooted in Genesis 2:23-24↔Ephesians 5:22-32.  And since this ‘bride’ included male contemporaries as well as millions yet to be born, it was through interacting spiritually with men that Jesus would ‘beget’ the sons and daughters God had willed him before time was (John 18:9; Romans 9:23; Hebrews 2:13).

   There was even a spiritual upgrade to the rite of circumcision, which pre-Jesus involved the cutting of the prepuce to ratify God’s covenant with Israel (Genesis 17:9-14↔Leviticus 12:3); and by this token reaffirming His exclusive relationship with men regarding religious matters.  Let us remember that it was to Adam, not Eve, that Yahweh gave instructions regarding dos and don’ts in Eden, though Adam tried to blame Eve for failing his duty (Genesis 3:11-12).  Adam, of course, was not circumcised given that pre-fall no covenant was needed; but when it came to Abraham, the rite of circumcision singled out males, not females, as contractual partners, since women had no prepuce to cut off.  So that once more we see that men—not women—had been chosen by God to be His stewards in the unfolding of His redemptive plan.

   It stands to reason that adults in Genesis 17:9-14, understanding issues of sin and redemption, would be asked to circumcise as a sign of religious commitment, but why would 8-day-old children (Leviticus 12:3)?  If sin attached with awareness of having broken the law (Romans 7:7), how could babies be transgressors?  The implication, therefore, was that everyone was in need of circumcision—born and yet to be born—at one point in their lifetimes; and because Scripture viewed man and wife as a single individual (Genesis 1:23, 5:2), females were also ‘circumcised’ by default:  Wives in their husbands; virgin daughters in their male parents.

   Now Jesus, bestriding both Mosaic and faith covenants, had to be circumcised according to tradition (Luke 2:21); though the essence of his ministry and the objective of his crucifixion was to invalidate Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:13-14).  Post-Jesus circumcision was symbolic rather than factual, for the true circumcision was of the heart (Romans 2:29), a concept Paul borrowed from Jeremiah 4:4:  “Circumcise yourselves to Yahweh, and take away the foreskins of your heart, you men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.”  And here again the emphasis is not on the whole of Israel, but on the men of Judah and Jerusalem—i.e., Christians, members of Jesus’ tribe and sons of their Heavenly Mother-City (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 7:14).  So that it is clear that Jewish circumcision was shadow to the substance of Christian circumcision; which shifted emphasis, as Jesus had done, from external factors that did not contaminate souls to what festered internally in men’s hearts (Genesis 6:5; Ecclesiastes 8:11, 9:3; Matthew 15:17-18).

   It was for those reasons that circumcision was meaningless to Paul; rather it was a snare that Christians should avoid lest by circumcising according to Mosaic Law, they became duty-bound to observe all its precepts (Galatians 5:1-12).  Even the Apostles understood that God would not be pleased with people who had been freed from such bondage yet preferred to be re-yoked to it (Acts 15:10); especially in view that faith was a far easier requirement than multitudes of do’s and don’ts all of which had to be obeyed in order to be justified (Ezekiel 20:11↔Galatians 5:3; James 2:10).

   It is in the sense of the impossibility of keeping the whole of Mosaic Law that Yahweh admitted He had given Jews “statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live” (Ezekiel 20:25); while at the same time piggybacking a parallel system of belief wherein justification was by faith, not acts or rites (Habakkuk 2:4).  While pork consumption in and of itself had no effect on a person’s spiritual condition or lack thereof (Matthew 15:11,16-17,20; Acts 11:8-9; Romans 14:3,6,14; 1Timothy 4:4-5), the obedience a Mosaic observer exhibited by not eating pork was the deciding factor that pleased God.  Why?  Because such obedience was proof of that person’s belief in God’s existence, which is the criterion He is after (Hebrews 11:6).

   On the issue of circumcision, the Apostles were of one mind:  Not needed, folks; move on but do obey those Mosaic restrictions which have a bearing on spiritual contamination (Acts 15:24,29).  Some may then ask, why did Paul circumcise Timothy?  Because Timothy was half-Greek (Acts 16:1-3);⁷ and since it was customary for Jews to repudiate Gentiles (Acts 10:28), Paul figured that something as meaningless as circumcision—though obviously painful to Timothy—was a small price to pay in order to gain new converts amongst die-hard Jews.  Paul was not above fudging stances where he stood to gain souls for Jesus (1Corinthians 9:20-22).

   And now we come to the symbolic aspect of Jesus’ “begetting.”  Again we must resort to Paul, who amongst all the Apostles Jesus chose to teach Gentiles the ins and outs of God’s hidden wisdom (Acts 9:15; 1Corinthians 2:7-15; Galatians 2:7).  However much Peter is beloved, he had a streak of wishy-washiness in him and Paul gave him hell for it (Galatians 2:11-14).  So before you, readers, join the bandwagon praising Peter as Jesus’ greatest Apostle—a notion Jesus discouraged (Matthew 20:26-27), drop on your knees and thank God for sending us Paul.

Family from New Testament Perspectives

   In 1Peter 1:10-12, the Apostle argued that the Old Testament served as preamble to the New.  The Prophets announced events both pertinent to their times and future ones beyond their understanding (Isaiah 66:22-23; Daniel 12:1-9; Zechariah 14:14:1-13; Luke 10:24), as well as providing clues to the identity and divinity of Jesus.  These revelations were not always straightforward and many were couched in symbolic language, for such was the methodology God had devised to reveal His ‘hidden’ wisdom to the faithful—meaning not readily apparent to and oftentimes beyond the understanding of unbelievers (Mark 4:11-12↔Isaiah 6:9-10, 28:13; 1Corinthians 2:7-14↔Deuteronomy 29:29).

   Paul defended his ministry on those grounds:  “I’ve had help from God to this day, and so I stand here to testify to both the powerful and the lowly alike, stating only what the prophets and Moses said would happen:  that the Messiah would suffer and be the first to rise from the dead and would bring light both to our people and to the gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23).  Paul did not pull teachings out of a hat:  Every argument he presented, even though Jews accuse him of turning Jesus into a God he never claimed to be, has its roots in Old Testament writings.⁸  So it was not surprising that Paul understood his symbolic ‘paternal/maternal’ role in raising spiritual issue for Jesus, in the knowledge that most of Mosaic Law, resting on Christian foundations, had been upgraded from mortal [shadow] to spiritual [substance] levels (Galatians 3:23-25; Hebrews 9:9-10)—as was the case specifically with Deuteronomy 25:5-6.

   If we must choose one aspect of Jesus’ ministry that informed Paul’s teachings is the fact that Jesus never married.  Jesus may have been tempted by sexual cravings as all men are (Hebrews 4:15), but marriage was inimical to his mission.  If we go by Paul’s warnings in 1Corinthians 7:3,32-33, a wife would have been a distraction and an obstacle to Jesus’ objectives, let alone fathering and caring for children.  Family and the pursuit of worldly trappings go hand in hand; both Jesus (Luke 17: 26-29) and Paul (2Timothy 2:4) frowned upon them; and God expected the faithful to forgo temporal things (James 4:2-4) until He was ready to reward them collectively in future (Matthew 25:34; Luke 14:26-27; Hebrews 11:13,39-40; 2Peter 3:9).

   Three quotes from Paul show us how well he understood his symbolic role in raising spiritual issue for Jesus.  In 2Corinthians 11:2 Paul sounds like marriage broker, a role not too dissimilar from that of Abraham’s servant commissioned to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24):  “I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”   In Galatians 4:19 Paul casts himself as a pregnant woman:  “My children, I am suffering birth pains for you again until Christ is formed in you.”  And in Philemon 1:10 Paul appeals on behalf of his “son, Onesimus, [who he] fathered while in chains.”  If nowhere else, here we find evidence of the spiritual form of ‘intercourse’ that superseded human sex.  And though not as multi-faceted as Paul’s role-playing, other Apostles addressed their audiences in familial terms—either as brothers (James 1:2; 1Peter 5:9; 1John 3:13) or “my children” (1John 2:18, 3:18).

The Family/Marriage Conundrum

   In Matthew 5:46-47 Jesus undermined the paramount family dynamic:  If you love only those who love you, is that worthy of reward?…And if you greet only relatives, are you not doing what even unbelievers do?  Jesus was criticizing the human predilection for prioritizing family/relations regardless of the moral/spiritual worth of its constituents.  When it came to God, a higher standard was required, something along the lines of what Paul intimated in Hebrews 12:9-10:  Parents raised their children according to their personal limitations, but God disciplined His spiritual offspring to be like Him.

   In so-called ‘hard sayings of Jesus’ like Matthew 10:37 and Luke 14:26, the word “hate” is meant to suggest not animosity but disapproval of relatives’ shortcomings.  One could still honor abusive parents while hating their abusive tendencies, so that both the spirit of the Third Commandment and Jesus’ ‘hard sayings’ were obeyed.  What one could not do—as is mostly the norm—was to downplay, excuse, turn a blind eye to, keep secret, or even justify the abuse out of familial loyalty.  The notion that loyalty to family trumps everything else is rooted in evil, not righteousness.

   When loved ones are suddenly taken away it is not uncommon to badmouth God or even hate Him—as Job’s wife did (Job 2:9-10).  Parents like Job and Abraham are exalted in the Bible precisely because even if Yahweh of hosts allowed their being put through the wringer, they were wise enough to bow their heads and hope for mercy.  Job lost all this children (Job 1:18-19) but never blamed God (Job 1:22); and though Satan was Job’s de facto tormentor (Job 1:11-12, 2:4-7), Job was aware Who was ultimately responsible for his misfortunes (Job 2:10).  For his part, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his beloved son while fully believing God would intervene (Genesis 22:1-10); and failing that, God was powerful enough to restore Isaac back to life (Hebrews 11:17-19).  In this God did not ask of Abraham something He Himself was unwilling to do:  He required Jesus’ crucifixion (John 18:11, 19:11↔Isaiah 53:10,12) and did raise him from the dead (Acts 13:30; Hebrews 13:20).  Viewed like this, Abraham’s experience foreshadows God’s own.

   This is easier to write about than experience it in the flesh.  Still when it comes to personal sacrifices, there is no ‘one-rule-fits-all’ in Scripture.  All of us, regardless of our biases and forbidden carnal desires, are challenged to overpower them, needless to say at great emotional cost to ourselves—especially when it comes to marriage.  For since sex is not to be practiced out of wedlock (1Corinthians 7:9), marriage brings with it a host of problems which Paul wished his audience to avoid:  Having to perform sexual obligations either partner might not wish; no possibility of divorce [separation was OK], which meant no chance of ‘remaking’ one’s life with someone else while original partners lived (Luke 16:18; Romans 7:3); and the Adam-Eve dynamic of wanting to please partner rather than God (1Corinthians 7:1-33).  Still Paul was careful to differentiate between his personal opinions (1Corinthians 7:7-8,12-16,27-28,34-38) and iron-clad doctrine (1Corinthians 7:10-11).

   In regards to the latter, Paul was following Jesus’ lead, though Jesus was not in the habit of sugarcoating or offering long-winded explanations about human behaviors.  Where divorce was concerned, Jesus was radical (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:4-6); and when men balked at the prospect of being stuck with wives they might no longer care for (John 19:9-10), Jesus sidelined onto the issue of celibacy.  His ‘eunuch’ argument (John 19:11-2) seems to focus on the personal choice of renouncing sex to concentrate on spiritual matters; for real-life eunuchs, while castrated, could perform normal sex.  What mattered to harem owners was to preserve an untainted lineage; and with many ‘wives’ needing attention, castrated but functional eunuchs gave harem owners a break without DNA pollution.

   Jesus was not endorsing physical castration, which in the past some ‘zealots’ attempted by twisting Matthew 5:30.  In point of fact Deuteronomy 23:1 forbids the practice:  “No man who has been castrated or whose penis has been cut off may be included among the LORD’s people.”  What Jesus was suggesting in Matthew 5:30 was that the flesh conspired against piety (Matthew 26:41↔Galatians 5:17), so that carnal desires were toxic to the spiritual self and had to be aggressively suppressed (Proverbs 16:32↔1Corinthians 9:27).   Finally, in terms of adultery, fantasizing about it was as bad as doing it (Matthew 5:27-28); which figuratively spelled living purgatory for hot-blooded, married males with roaming eyes and overactive libidos.

  So even if marriage carried a lot of baggage, Jesus, himself betrothed to a spiritual bride (Ephesians 5:22-23; Revelation 21:2,9), in no wise discouraged the practice amongst mortals.  His first apostolic choice, Peter, was married (Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30); and it is interesting to note nothing is told us about the marital state of the other Apostles.  In fact only Paul and perhaps Barnaby had voluntarily chosen celibacy over marriage (1Corinthians 9:5-6).  But the reason should be clear to us, should it not?  If the Gospel had detailed the sexual dilemmas of the Apostles, generations of Bible readers would have been measuring/justifying their own failings against the record.  That being said, who in Scripture forbid marriage?  Those who listen to doctrines of demons (1Timothy 4:1-3); and we do know who they are, do we not?

   Wrapping things up, human marriage is shadow to the substance of Jesus’ marriage to his Church; thus making marriage not so much a command as a choice.  Human sex is shadow to the substance of spiritual intercourse which engenders children for Jesus.  Human families are shadow to the substance of a global family of faith united in perfect love and faith.  All of these shadow counterparts were means to an end, not objectives in and of themselves.  But since to us they are more immediate, rewarding, enjoyable, peer-validating, preserving the status-quo, doing as others do or what-have-you, we have turned them into the ABC’s of human existence.

   And because they serve Satan’s agenda, church and state exalt them as ideal states—the reason why non-breeders were/are discriminated against.  Religious leaders crave herds to control, exploit, and barter to the powers that be for higher stakes.  Cannon fodder is needed to wage wars or to get politicians elected into higher office.  For that a breeding platform is needed:  Family; and no matter where we turn to in the media, the non-stop propaganda is that no matter what moral values are compromised or stomped upon, family always comes first.

   Thus we see that while the concept of family has symbolic value in Scripture, and it is indeed patterned after heavenly templates, it is not necessarily the goal we should strive for.  Besides the personal challenges we have discussed, prioritizing family survival shackle us to state and church agendas contrary to God’s will:  We will do everything to protect our own flesh and blood.

   So it would seem that if only God is able to provide safety and security for family members in times of upheaval as was done with Noah and Lot—what Paul called “grace in times of need” (Hebrews 4:16), it behooves us to risk the wrath of relatives and endure their slights in the hope that one’s fealty to God will tip the scales in our and their favor.  While not every family member will be saved no matter habitual, in-family prayers (Luke 17:34-36), there are precedents where the faith of one member saved his/her entire family (Joshua 2:12-13, 6:22-23; Hebrews 11:7; 1Peter 3:20); and the possibility that one’s righteous but personally costly sacrifices (1Corinthians 7:14-16) may redeem his/her espouse.  It is by prioritizing God that our unworthy loved ones stand a chance to be saved.

   We will continue our discussion in Part II.

^{1 “}He who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination”; for “God does not hear sinners, but if anyone [fears and obeys Him], He hears him” (Proverbs 28:9; John 9:31)—which means that any praying family member failing those caveats is off God’s radar.

   Judeo-Christians seem to be walking on eggs when it comes to the issue of fearing God, but the fear spoken of here is the certainty that if He says “no,” it will always be “no”; and if He says “jump,” do not ask how high but do it.  Jesus himself told us to fear God on grounds that his Father would definitely burn transgressors at Armageddon (Matthew 10:28; Revelation 20:9).  So when Scripture says, “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10), do fear Him if you want to get wiser.

² As used here ‘friend’ means ‘acquaintance,’ the general and uncritical way men use the word.  In the Bible, true friendship is the most exalted form of human love—as Jesus intimated in John 15:13.  Please note that though King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16), and High Priest (Hebrews 6:20, 7:26), Jesus foremost labeled himself a friend (John 15:15).

   Please refer to 3-FRIENDSHIP in this series.

³ In Joseph’s case by family members (Genesis 37:11); in Jesus’ by Jewish priests (Matthew 27:18; Mark 15:10).  Since Joseph foreshadows Jesus, note that they were both sold for silver coins (Genesis 37:28; Matthew 26:15↔Zechariah 11:13).

⁴ See Paul’s neat summary in Hebrews 12:24:  “Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks better than the blood of Abel.”  The ‘speaking’ refers to Genesis 4:10, in which Abel’s spilt blood clamors for justice to Yahweh in Heaven—as do the martyred souls under the Heavenly altar (Revelation 6:9-10).

⁵ Judah/Jerusalem: Scriptural code for Christians; as Israel/Samaria was for Jews.

⁶ Even then she gets more coverage in the Gospels than Joseph.

⁷ Which was not the case with Titus (Galatians 2:3).

⁸ We have discussed Paul’s arguments corroborating the divinity of Jesus—as Scripture presents them—throughout many of our essays.