“Sister Kinship, I am a Christian just like you so don’t misquote the Bible to me. The Bible is a book of Polygamy both new and old testaments,and anytime a few people object to the Polygamy of the Bible times like Paul they try to give reasons for not having more than one wife to a unlistening society. Without Polygamy Ruth could never have had a husband being a widow! Women in the Bible were all able to marry if they wanted because of Polygamy. So we Sisters interested in our African cultural roots know that Polygamy takes care of all women!”

So entgegnet die Verfasserin dieses Blogs “This Rasta Sister Explains Polygamy” einer “modernen” Schwarzen, die Polygamie als einseitig zur Befriedigung männlicher Bedürfnisse ansieht.

Polygamie hilft Frauen, sich gegenseitig zu unterstützen; stabilisiert Familien; gibt allen Kindern einen Vater, gibt Witwen einen Mann (dabei bezieht sie sich auf die alttestamentarische Rut), sie sieht Polygamie als Möglichkeit für alle schwarzen Frauen, die zu ihren kulturellen Wurzeln in Afrika zurückkehren möchten. Polyandrie (mehrere Männer) dagegen sieht sie als Chaos an: keine Frau weiß dann, wer der Vater ihres Kindes ist.

“Our Polygamy is HOLY because we practice it to benefit all women” – deutlicher könnte es kein Mann sagen, was das Wichtigste an Polygamie ist.

Und dann fragt sie die Frauen, die denken, sie könnten keinen Mann teilen, ob sie sich so sicher seien, daß  sie ihren Mann noch nie teilen mußten?

Um mit einer wirklich positiven Vision zu schließen: “I know that in the Blackamerikkkan household Polygamy means more than 3 sources of income to pool and help all. And in Africa,and in the BIBLE Black women always work,house,field,business of the husband so they contribute always tremendously to the family welfare.We are not desparate,but happy BLACK women who loving work together with our co-wives and wonderful husband to care for the family’s needs,as well as the society’s needs” – Polygamie, um Familien ein stabiles Einkommen zu ermöglichen, um Frauen in Gemeinschaft auch bei der Familien – und Erwerbsarbeit zu stärken.

Welche Frau hat nicht die Einsamkeit in Erinnerung, wenn sie mit einem oder mehr kleinen Kind(ern) alleine zu Hause sitzt? Und er denkt, er müsse möglichst viel arbeiten, um die Familie zu versorgen? Und dabei in einen unlösbaren Konflikt kommt? Ich habe das schon mehrmals erfahren – diese Einsamkeit war ein Hauptgrund der Verzweiflung meiner Frau in der ersten Ehe, die Einsamkeit trieb auch meine zweite Frau oft an den Rand der Verzweiflung. Nach hunderten von Jahren weißer Mission in Schwarzafrika – warum sollten wir mit unserem Kleinfamilienmodell, das bedrohliche Erosionserscheinungen zeigt, uns nicht von afrikanischen Christen helfen lassen? Und unseren Eurozentrismus, der seine Wurzeln mehr in Aufklärung und griechisch-römischer Philosophie hat als in der Bibel, zugunsten der Familien und der Menschlichkeit aufgeben?

Eine weitere Stimme ist die schwarze Hochschuldozentin Dr. Patricia Dixon, die in ihrem Buch “We Want for Our Sisters what we want for ourselves” Monogamie als Ergebnis eines Eurozentrismus ansieht und eine schwarze Ethik der Polygamie zum Nutzen der Frauen entwickelt ,  “The Biblical Case Against Polygyny and for Monogamy” “…how the Bible has been used to affirm monogamy’s compatibility … with Christianity”. Es geht also nicht nur um einen fundamentalistischen Rückzug auf eine alttestamentarische Wortgläubigkeit und Gesetzlichkeit, sondern um, Befreiung, Beziehung, Behütung, Bewahrung, stabile Partnerschaften.

The book of Genesis gives us a glimpse of who Jesus is in the Old Testament (O.T).

In the book of Ruth, we often focus on the main character, Ruth, who was not a Jew but was from the land of Moab and Ruth is speculated to be a possible modification of the Hebrew word Reuit which means “Friendship” or “Association”. She did not belong to the Jews but was married to one who was a relative (kinsman) of a mighty man of wealth, an individual named Boaz. She finds favor in his eyes and this is a cameo story of love, romance, devotion and redemption because she choose to stay with her mother-in-law Naomi, affirming that Naomi’s God, the true God will be her God as well when she says I will go where you will go and your God will be my God (Ruth 1:16).

But I want us to focus on what Boaz tells Ruth. He tells her Come, let’s eat. (Ruth 2:14) . This is very similar to Jesus’ saying - Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. (Rev 3:20)

In Ruth, Jesus is our Friend, our Kinsman Redeemer, beckoning us to open the door of our heart, so that he can come in and we can eat (fellowship) together.

an invisibility cloak. I think they’ll probably really exist, one day. There have been some stories in the news about scientists developing materials that could be used to make such cloaks in the future. It would be nice to go about unseen sometimes. Just think of all the places you could get into, all the things you could see and overhear and all the people you could avoid! However, there are other times when I am actually, as far as I’m aware, quite visible and yet no one seems to see either me or the effect of me. Maybe fading into the background is a gift in some situations, but not when, for example, one is in a restaurant trying to get the waiter’s attention or when one is queuing at a bar. I’m not even short! I think I must have a sort of non-presence – like the opposite of charisma or stage presence. Weird, but possibly useful if I ever wanted to be a spy.

Talking of spying, Ruth is back in Spooks. Hooray!

It’s that time of the year again. Twilight fever has hit our shores as its latest film New Moon hits premieres all across the world. Thousands of screaming 16-year-old girls lock their eyes on “like…the-love-of-my-life” actor Robert Pattison, dreaming of piggy-back rides up pine trees in North America. To be honest I’m not sure what they see in him although I have been corrected that its actually the character of Edward Cullen that sets the hearts of females alight.

“He turned to look at me with a wistful expression. His golden eyes held mine and I lost my train of thought. I stared at him until he looked away…

Edward stood in the halo of the porch light, looking like a male model in an advertisement for raincoats.”

So the conclusion is that Edward Cullen is the epitomy of what women want – charming, attractive, strong, a gentleman in any form of the word, protective and mysterious. But as I was sitting there watching this teenage fantasy, I couldn’t help but think about the flock of men accompanying their vampire-crazed women. Are they feeling insecure from being compared to such a ‘perfect’ man/creature? Do they feel like they ought to aspire to the unattainable Edward? Should they be perfecting the subtleties of etiquette and the eloquent delivery of admiration for their love?

There may be some place for those in some men, but I believe there are other vital attributes we should focus on in the development of ourselves as men. “Think biblically” is what I thought. I decided to compile, using human examples from the Bible, the attributes of the perfect man. Someone whom a Christian man should look up to and what a  Christian women would want. This would be the man I would aspire to become and I’ve based him on the following qualities:

…love & the heart
…wisdom & words of affection
…commitment & trust
…life-standards & forbearance
…loyalty & determination
…strength & courage

It will be interesting to see what women think of this, so here are the details.

…love & the heart – David

Who can really go against the label of King David as the “man after God’s own heart” (1 Saumel 13:14)? Granted, David has his faults with women but I argue that a man after God’s own heart and a passion for his Lord and Saviour, would understand Ephesians 5:25 and its implications. It is one thing to love a woman, it is another thing to love her as Christ would love His people.

David was unrelentless when it came to love. He was steadfast in the position of his heart and immediately turned back to God when he realised his wrongs. He is a great example to follow in terms of passion, love and dedication to the state of his heart toward God and men. Although at times his lust for women got the better of him, his open and honest heart in his relationship with God shone through.

…wisdom & words of affection – Solomon

Find me one woman who does not appreciation the attention of a man who has a way with words. If you have not read Song of Solomon then read it.  (Chapter 4 is a keeper!) There is certainly a place in our lives for the expression of our deep and profound love for that special second-half. I particularly like this one, “You have made my heart beat faster, my sister, my bride. You have made my heart beat faster with a single glance of your eyes, with a single strand of your necklace.” Poetic, profound, intense and passionaite.

Consider though, that there is a line between cute words of ill-intentions and exclaimations of love from the depths of the heart. Words of accalaim should not be without wisdom. There is such a display of strength when romance is coupled with wise decision-making and no man should flee from the responsibility that comes with the love of a woman.

That said, I say bring back the days of using our beautiful language to express our overwhelming raw emotion! But let’s not carried away as even the tender affection toward each other should be done in godly wisdom, considering the sanctity of marriage and the appropriateness of the relationship between a brother and sister in Christ.

…commitment & trust – Boaz

Known to many as one of the most romantic short stories of all time, the Book of Ruth describes not just a devoted and loyal woman but the endearing commitment of a man named Boaz. When read in context, Boaz who was not a young man, showered Ruth with countless acts of grace. He did not demean her as a woman or smother her with only wordly gifts. Instead, he served and protected her with a commitment and a trust like no other man. Ruth had other options. She could have turned to younger men and ignored the hand of an age-hardened man. Instead she pursued a man who demonstrated a love that was pure, true and life-long.

Commitment is one trait that Boaz was not found wanting. He was commited to redeeming her as her kinsman and refused to back down unless all avenues were completely exhausted. He not only trusted Ruth with his heart but He trusted God with the provision for both of them to be together. His commitment was unwavering and it was the endearing character of Boaz that earned him a rightful place in the genealogy of Jesus. His name was included even though he had actually sacrificed his own title and recognition to redeem the love of his life.

…faithfulness & forbearance – Job

The days of moral justice and patience have long gone. We live in a society where divorce has run rife perhaps due to the view of marriage as a whirlwind love affair without understanding the need for forbearance and rock-solid life principles based on God’s Word. We meet Job – the man who had everything and lost everything. Tested by Satan to the tenth degree but was unwavering in his attitude with God being his center. Do you want to see a man who is long-suffering and forbearing in the face of terrible circumstances imparted on his familiy, wife and life? Job is the man who has been through it all and survives only by the strength of God.

Faithfulness is another attribute that I admire of Job. You tend to think of faithfulness as this puffy-white-cloud-of-a-boy never taking his eyes off his childhood sweetheart. In reality, faithfulness is an armoury of weapons dispatched to keep selfish desires and temptation at bay. Job took faithfulness to a new level. “I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl” (Job 31:1) he exclaims. He held his wife in high esteem and his God even higher! Job’s unwavering faithfulness in God extended to his wife. His faithfulness was not one of gentleness. No, it was powerful and active and evident before all men.

…loyalty & determination – Uriah

Uriah is definitely up there as one of my most favourite Old Testament characters. Although not much is said about him, I believe his loyalty and determination is the perfect example for every man to follow. He knew his duty and he loved his wife. He was loyal to his king and even more to his God. Being the husband of Bathsheba must have been a tough ask, as she probably drew the attention of countless men because of her beauty (even King David could not resist). Yet, Uriah was loyalty personified.

I love the fact that Uriah was inserted into the genealogy of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 1:6. I believe this is testament not only of the sins of David and Bathsheba, but as an account of the life of Uriah whose name means “Yahweh is my light”. If you want to talk about determination and loyalty, here is a man who denied himself time with his extraordinarly beautiful wife in order to honour the code of his fellow warriors and the morale of the soldiers in his charge. For a man of such loyalty you would assume that he would expected the same loyalty from Bathsheba. For his determination and loyalty he inadvertantly exposed the sin of the king but the result of his own death. Did Uriah see his death coming? Probably. Did he back down? No. A man who shows loyalty to his brothers and friends would be showing loyalty to his woman and I believe for Uriah, this is the case.

…strength & courage – Joshua

Apparently in New Moon, one of the characters who is a close male friend of the protagonist is actually a werewolf. In a heartbeat, he strips off his shirt to reveal a defined and muscular body and then instantly transforms into a fearless wolf. Whilst it’s a captivating display it does not demonstrate the strength and courage that God loves to see of His faithful men, but Joshua is a perfect example.

I am a strong believer of what God says about man’s role as a leader of the house. It is not chauvinism and it is certainly not meant to be abused. It is a blessing yet a burden of responsibility. It is a charge from God and a hard (not a high) calling. Joshua 24:15 is the account of a man who stayed strong and courageous in the face of adversity. He was being called to the task of filling the huge shoes of Moses, when God gave Him the divine motivational words, “Be strong and very courageous!”. So we read that Joshua stood, in front of a people who were turning against the Word of God. He stood in front of a mass of people who were indignant to his message and the glory of the true and living God. He was talking hearts that could turn against him and men who could attack him. Yet, he spoke truth. “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD”.

Strength is not measured by muscle, it is measured by our response to the Word. Courage is not measured by our self-reliant fearlessness, it is measured by our trust in God. A strong man responds to His Word and its truth with fervor and passion and will not back down. A courageous man will place faith in the power, hold onto the promises and act on the commands of the True and Living God.

If we had the heart of David – we would love unconditionally.

If we had the wisdom of Solomon – we would act accordingly.

If we had the commitment of Boaz – we would never look back.

If we had the perseverance of Job – we would never falter.

If we had the loyalty of Uriah – we would not back down.

If we had the courage of Joshua – we would never lose sight.

All this only for the glory of our mighty God and Saviour!

If all Christian men were like this the world will change. Families will change, marriages will change, churches will change – all this to the glory of God! I want to be that man.

First off, a Thanksgiving news alert:  I don’t plan to post on Thursday, November 26 or Friday, November 27.  I’m headed off to visit my in-laws in Detroit, and they have these crazy ideas about people sitting in the same room and enjoying each others’ company.  :)

It’s been a quiet week as the US readies for the holiday.  

Well, not entirely quiet.  The second Twilight flick,  New Moon, premiered.  Names spotted among those turning out for the festivities included designer Rachel Roy brought her 10 year old daughter Ava.  Rachel and husband Damon Dash also have a toddler called Tallulah Ruth.  (via Celebrity Baby Blog)  It’s interesting to see parents who embraced Ava ten years ago, when she was still on the rise, using Tallulah more recently.  Anyone else think that the once-outlandish name that had everyone abuzz when the Moore-Willis clan used it will go mainstream?  And if a search for “baby names Twilight” brought you here, check out this post: Not Just for Vampires Anymore.

In other celeb news, Tiffani Thiessen tells Extra that she and her husband aren’t considering “any freaky names.”  She doesn’t mention whether going through life as Tiffani-Amber colored her view.  We’ll have to wait and see.

On to some real life name-spotting:

• I just returned from Target.  I was buying toddler tights while another mom was trying to persuade her daughter to try on a coat, but the daughter?  Was fleeing to the just-steps-away toy department.  The name the mother was calling?  ”Miracle!  Miracle, come back here!”  Insert your own joke about it-taking-an-act-of-God to distract a 3 y.o. from the toy department here;
• Bewildertrix has spotted Leonidas George.  My baby brother swears Leonidas will be the name of his firstborn son, should that happy event ever come to pass.  She also uncovered an Elisabetta Ivy.  And a Zuma.  (No Gwen Stefani isn’t in New Zealand – he’s Zuma Louis, a non-celeb baby brother for Ava and Remi.)
• For Real Baby Names spotted Dafne.  It may be a valid foreign variant, but to me it is like Jorja/Georgia - this one just looks better as the more familiar Daphne. 

Now for two Language Lessons from that sage font of wisdom, Nancy:

• Hard G vs. Soft G – Sometimes they’re interchangeable – as in Jorja/Georgia – but other times, swapping a J for a G leads to confusion;
• Doubling consonants – Ditto doubling a consonant.  It’s another popular way to make a name “unique,” but it can also cause confusion.

Truly unusual names are always found at Nameberry, and this week’s posts were no exception.  Check out the Lost Boys’ Names of 1880.  Why aren’t more boys named Zeb?  Or Hardy?  Others – including titles like Squire and Commodore – are best left to history.  (I work with a man in his 50s named General.  I don’t get the impression that he thinks much about his name one way or the other.)  For a change, the girls’ list is almost less interesting – maybe because I wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if I met a 2 y.o. called Mahala or Texas. 

Let’s end on a controversial note: the shortcomings of the Baby Name Wizard.  I recently noticed a post on Swistle (a big BNW adherent) that troubled me.  Just a few days earlier, Nancy recounted a similar story on her blog.  

An expectant mother, mom to Sophia, wrote to Swistle about the name Allegra.  She and her husband loved the name Allegra.  Loved the way nicknames Allie and Sophie sounded together.  But she worried about the allergy medication association.

Swistle wrote: “I love the name Allegra—and every time I want to suggest it, I back away because of the allergy medicine. I’m ANGRY at the company that stole it.”

Swistle’s poll was evenly split: 52% no to Allegra; 48% yes.  But here’s the thing: Swistle’s framing of the question – “Is the name Allegra too associated with allergy medication to be used for a baby?” made it pretty clear that she thought Allegra was beyond consideration.  (Swistle is usually so judgment-free that I was really surprised by that.)

The mom herself recently wrote in:

“We ended up naming our daughter Lucy. I love her name, but I regret not being gutsy enough to go with Allegra. Personally, I’d encourage anyone considering the name to go for it. No matter what name you choose some people will like it and others will hate it.”

Lucy is a fine name.  I like it lots.  But how sad that much naming advice often tends to push parents to the middle, rather than embracing the names that we really love. 

I suspect the allergy medication reference is fleeting.  When the blogger at For Real Baby Names spotted a Dexy Adelaide, I mentioned the 80s pop hit “Come On, Eileen” – and sent ForReal running to Google.  Dexy, it appears, no longer means “one-hit wonder responsible for lodging the phrase too-rye-aye in my brain.”  And it hasn’t been that long.  It makes me think Allegra will be free of medication association by the time Allie hits the teenage years, if not sooner.

Thanks for reading!

Donderdag 19 november

Halfweg ! Sinds deze avond zijn we officieel Sotomayor-af. En om onze stage goed af te sluiten, zagen we deze dag de volle nul bevallingen passeren. ’t Was blijkbaar rustdag in bevallend Guayaquil. Ter compensatie hebben we wel een drukke laatste nacht achter de kiezen. Ieder 4 bevallingen ! Jammer genoeg niet met zeer meewerkende vroedvrouwen, dus veel heb ik niet mogen hechten. Nu ja, toch net genoeg mogen doen om mijn teller op mijn streefgetal te krijgen: 16 bevallingen geassisteerd, waarvan 10 echt zelf uitgevoerd. 10 Ecuadoriaantjes zijn een beetje van mij …

Het is ondertussen al weer een tijdje geleden dat ik mijn schrijfselen hier kwam tentoonspreiden. Met een weekje vakantie op de Galápagos in het verschiet, zal ik bij deze wat schade proberen inhalen en een verslagje geven van onze vorige uitstap. Zoals de titel het al laat vermoeden, was de uitverkoren bestemming Cuenca, een stadje in de bergen op 2400m hoogte. Nu ja, stadje … ’t Is naar het schijnt de derde grootste stad in Ecuador, maar met zijn geplaveide wegen, oranje daken, rivieren doorheen en bergen rondom, geeft Cuenca een zeer gezellige indruk. Het deed mij een beetje denken aan Zwitserland of Noord-Italië. Tel daar bovenop dat het nog eens stralend weer was (wat het watertekort voor energieproductie hier in Ecuador deels verklaart), en ik was helemaal verkocht. Hier wil ik ooit wel komen wonen. Nog iemand ?

Geen onaangename busavonturen deze keer. Aangezien we met 5 waren (het initiatief kwam van de vroedvrouwen, die zich nog van 2 jaar geleden herinnerden hoe mooi Cuenca was), was het de moeite om een klein mini-busje te huren. Sneller en veiliger ! (alleen de muziekkeuze van de chauffeur kon beter) We sliepen in een hostal met ontbijt op een terras dat uitzicht gaf op de rivier. Alleen de harde bedden waren iets minder aangenaam … Het was een gastronomisch (elke dag een ijscoupe voor ongeveer 2 dollar in een ‘heladería’ die Martine nog kende van de vorige keer, mmmm) en zeer ontspannend (in het zonnetje zitten op een riviersteen) weekendje. Op een rare politie-achtervolging met geweerschot na … (ik zal hier toch nooit aan die rare situaties wennen).
We kwamen zelfs een Belgisch café met de naam ‘lekker’ tegen. Al hebben we collectief besloten dat de naam ‘Belgisch café’ niet waard is: geen Belgisch bier, er werd geen Nederlands of Frans gesproken, en van de uitgebreide dessertenkaart was er niks in huis ! (een goede Belg kan toch wel verse wafelen bakken zeker ?)

Bij deze zijn we qua kleur weer wat meer geïntegreerd in Zuid-Amerika. Margot ziet zelfs al bruiner dan de gemiddelde Ecuadoriaan.

Oh, nog een tof nieuwtje: aan allen die mij als eerste een brief wilden schrijven: U bent te laat ! (met dank aan mijn opa ) Ik kan ter info meegeven dat de post er ongeveer 10 dagen over doet. *hint*

Daniel my brother you are older than me
Do you still feel the pain of the scars that won’t heal
Your eyes have died but you see more than I
Daniel you’re a star in the face of the sky

Elton John sang these lyrics with melodic conviction through our truck’s fuzzy radio reception this morning.  I was late (again) for chapel, yet when this song buzzed in I felt myself relax and begin to sing along.  (Singing when alone is about the only opportunity I get for singing nowadays [living with introverts has its challenges...]).  Since I cut teeth on KDWB AM 630 radio, I suppose I’ve heard Elton’s Daniel hundreds of times since its early 1970’s release–it runs deep in my psyche, yet I’m not sure I’ve ever actually listened to the words of this verse.  So go figure, while racing to go adore, I hear them as if for the first time. 

Although I know many Daniels (and some very cool Daniels at that),  Daniel from the Old Testament flashed before my mind’s eye.  Need some help?  Well, he is most well known for his dip in the lion’s den found in the Old Testament book of Daniel.  The story goes something like this:  Daniel refuses to bow before any king ordained gods and openly worships God instead, so he is thrown into a pit of hungry lions, lions whose mouths are closed by God.  Daniel lives, God gets the glory-oh yeah!  This is only one story, though: Daniel, time and time again throughout his life, chose unswerving trust in God and time and time again, God rescued, honored, lifted Daniel (even after years in a prison for something he didn’t do).  God gives Daniel the gifts of interpreting dreams and prophecy that prove to be invaluable for the people of his day as well as the people of our day.  He stands tall before God and, as Elton sings, he is my brother.

My brother…my brother…in Christ he is my brother…even though his “eyes have died” and he sees “more than I”, he is my brother.  Singing happily in a Mercury Mountaineer I wondered: have I been so dense all these years of struggling with earthly family issues that I’ve not seen the Family I’m part of?  Have I really never realized deeply who I’m eternally kin with?  Do I see Moses, Daniel, Ruth, Elijah, Mary, Jesus, Paul, St Patrick, Teresa of Avila, Padre Pio and Mother Teresa as my Brothers and Sisters?  Do I dare to ponder that these departed souls root me on and want nothing but the best for me just like my biological brother does?  Could it be that they check in to see how I’m doing like my brother and I do with each other?  Do they show up, stick close and pray hard when heartache visits, like many siblings do for each other?  Do they feel my pain, “the pain of scars that won’t heal”? 

Wow!  Have I been blind!  The Apostle Paul in the New Testament states over and over that followers of Jesus are Brothers and Sisters in Christ, yet I haven’t REALLY taken that in.  I need to sit with this a bit and ingest:  I have Family (not just a cloud of witnesses, like Hebrews 12 says) who, although physically dead, are real and present and trying to help me walk by faith with God.  They stand in His brilliance and undoubtedly pray for me as I try to hang with the Big Guy……………………Oh my gosh, even when I feel alone, I’m not alone, none of us are.  And with them we’re safe for they never betray, abandon, neglect or belittle…they’re life-givers, they’re fellow siblings of faith who are free of the sin nature that we on earth struggle with, yet they know all about that struggle.  They get it and “see more than I”.  They’re safe souls we can trust, they’re like Brothers and Sisters in the flesh but oh so much more, for they perpetually live in the holy Presence of God. 

It’s not just me and Jesus, it is me and a sea of supportive Siblings too.  As I reach for God, maybe they help extend my arms.  As I weep for others, maybe they weep with me.  As I stumble in faith, maybe they’re Ones who get beneath and lift until sure footing is found… 

Surely, each is a shining, holy ”star in the face of the sky” that I’m only just beginning to see…

ONE TOOL USED AGAINST JEWS CLAIM TO ISRAEL IS THAT THEY ARE NOT SEMITES. NOW SEMITES AS A RACIAL GROUPING ENDED WITH THE ABANDONMENT OF RACE THEORY AS A NAZI BELIEF RATHER THAN PROVEN FACT .THE ACCUSATION BY MODERN DAY ADHERENTS OF NAZI RACE THEORY IS THAT THEY ARE
KHAZARS. ONE OF SEVERAL PEOPLES WHO ADOPTED JUDAISM. THIS MAY IN SOME EXTENT BE TRUE OR NOT.
JEWS ARE OBVIOUSLY AN AMALGAM OF MANY PEOPLES. THEY ARE A MULTI-RACIAL PEOPLE. BIGOTS USE WHITE ASHKENAZI TERM QUITE OFTEN, THIS IS A BLATANT REFLECTION OF THEIR OWN WHITE CENTERED BELIEFS OF . SEPHARDIC JEWS, MIZRACHI JEWS, INDIAN JEWS, FALASHA ETHIOPIAN JEWS, AND CONVERTS FROM SOUTH AMERICA, THE FAR EAST SHOW A DIVERSITY THATS DETESTED AS MONGREL BY ARYAN PUREBRED TYPES. JEWS ARE NO LONGER A JUDEAN PEOPLE. THEY HAVE SEMITIC CONNECTIONS THROUGH CHROMOSOMES AND LANGUAGE.
AND THIS A PATTERN GOING BACK TO  THE BERBERS, EDOMITES, AS WELL AS THE ANCIENT MOABITES. BEFORE THE TAMUD THE TORAH SHOWCASED THIS IN RUTH. SHE WAS A MOABITE WHO CONVERTED, AND DESPITE GREAT DIFFICULTY REMAINED AN ISRAELITE. AND HER DESCENDENT WAS KING DAVID.SO WHAT IS THE CLAIM OF JEWS TO ISRAEL? ITS SIMPLY THEY BOUGHT LAND IN ZION, CARED FOR IT A DEFENDED IT AT GREAT COST! THERE IS AND SHOULD BE NO BLOODLINE CLAIM TO ISRAEL OR ANY LAND.

We sure had fun at Great Grandma and Grandpa’s. Okay, well some of us slept through the fun.

1 Samuel 1:24-28 — After he was weaned, she took the boy with her, young as he was, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour and a skin of wine, and brought him to the house of the Lord at Shiloh.  When the bull had been sacrificed, they brought the boy to Eli, and she said to him, “Pardon me, my lord.  As surely as you live, I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the Lord.  I prayed for this child, and the Lord has granted me what I asked of him.  So now I give him to the Lord.  For his whole life he will be given over to the Lord.”

One of my most powerful memories is from March 20, 2005.  That Sunday morning, Grace and I stood in front of our church to “dedicate” Andrew.  Standing there holding my 5 day old son, I meant every word of this…  I prayed for this boy, and the Lord has granted me what I asked of him.  So now I give him to the Lord.  For his whole life he will be given over to the Lord.

And I still mean it today.

The Elephant 6 Collective

A record label.  A collection of musicians.  An ethos.  A cult.  The Elephant 6 Collective is all that and more. Based in Athens, Ga. (after originating in Denver), and formed by Bill Doss, Will Hart, Jeff Mangum and Robert Schneider, it started out as a way to record and release their psychedelic influenced lo-fi pop. It soon spiraled and transformed, with other artists joining and band members working on each others’ albums. Eventually, it became less of a recording company than a pool of artists who shared a similar style and philosophy about making music.  And it was from this pool that some of the greatest artists of the genre’s modern era — Neutral Milk Hotel, The Apples in Stereo, of Montreal and The Olivia Tremor Control to name a few — got their start.

So what’s the very best of trip-hop? 20 Watts’ MARC SOLLINGER has the answer in our ninth 20 installment. Watch for new 20s each Thursday, only on 20 Watts, and check out our previous 20s below!

Lilyrae (parents Louise and Lindsay)

Sienna (Chloe and Liam) (parents Naomi & Paul)

Makayla (parents Cassie & Sam)

Louis (Henry) (parents Nichola & David)

Edward (Benji & Samuel) (parents Ruth & Nick)

Jade (parents Sita & Henry)

Kelsey (parents Teresa & Lee)

Sapphire (parents Vanessa, Kevin, Shareen & Nathan)

Using all of the data at my disposal with regard to Ruth’s rate of weight gain, I have projected Ruth’s estimated gain over the first year.

About: this paper was delivered to Professor Dale Liid at Fuller Theological Seminary during my second year for the second quarter of the Biblical Hebrew class.

Ruth 4:1-4 describes the portion of Ruth where Boaz confronts the next-of-kin. In this text, Boaz publicly and officially declares to him to take charge of his responsibility, since he has not yet acted and fulfilled his duty. Let us examine the text in Hebrew, the original language with which the book of Ruth was written, starting with verse 1.

Boaz went to the city gate most likely during the conversation between Ruth and Naomi in Chapter 3 (these two events may in fact be simultaneous). Although it is not imperative to understanding the story, it might help in understanding the setting to know that the events may be happening at the same time. According to one commentator, Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin; the Sanhedrin met at the city gate.¹ Regardless if this is true, for the text itself does not say Boaz was the head of the Sanhedrin, official matters were dealt with at the city gate. Boaz is seeking to officially settle the issue with the next-of-kin. What was the issue?

The next-of-kin, or גֹאֵל in Hebrew, had not performed his duty. As גֹאֵל, he was to buy the land from Naomi, thus keeping it in the family. But this גֹאֵל had not even so much as indicated that he was going to fulfill his role. As a result, Boaz went to the gate to resolve the issue. After Boaz arrived at the gate, the text literally says, “And behold, the kinsman was passing by whom Boaz was speaking of.” It is as though God orchestrated the event. Boaz was speaking of the גֹאֵל at the gate, and while he was speaking, not as coincidence, he came passing by.²

Boaz took charge at the moment the גֹאֵל was passing by. He commanded him to turn and sit down. But he did not call him by name. The NRSV rendering, “friend,” is misleading. The Hebrew reads פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. The meaning of this phrase has been lost.³ It is possible that it could be a name, but it is highly unlikely. It is possible that it could have an idea of concealment or secrecy behind it, but this is quite uncertain. It is probably best to take it to mean “So and so” (literally, “certain one–so and so”). Perhaps the reason for this convoluted phrase is the fact that in one copy of the Septuagint, one commentator says, the phrase is translated into Greek to mean “anonymous,” while in a different copy of the Septuagint, the phrase is translated to mean “secret.” It is plausible that this textual variant contributes to the obscure interpretation of the phrase for us today. Whatever the reason, the end result is we have lost the way the original audience heard, interpreted, and understood this phrase.⁴ One commentator likes the translation “John Doe.”⁵ However, this translation would lead a contemporary reader to believe that the person’s name is simply not known and so the anonymous name is applied to that person. However, we do not know if the situation merits this translation. Perhaps the real name was known to the original audience, and it was instead left out of the text and replaced with the anonymous phrase for dramatic effect (i.e., “unmentionable one”). In any case, it seems best to leave the translation as “So and so,” so that no confusion or incorrect interpretation might take place.

After commanding פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to turn and sit, the text says he turned and sat down. In verse 2, Boaz then proceeded to get 10 elders to sit down at the gate. Ten men were necessary for a lawful assembly.⁶ One commentator says that 10 sages were required to be present for marriage ceremonies, and thus links the situation here in Ruth with a wedding.⁷ The text itself does not necessarily indicate that a wedding ceremony is occurring. To proclaim a wedding in this text is to interpret beyond the boundaries of the text. In other words, it makes more out of the story than is actually present. We need only to say that an official meeting is taking place, since the setting is at the city gate and ten elders of the city are present, which satisfy the requirements to have an official meeting.

After having assembled 10 elders at the gate, in verse 3 Boaz then speaks to פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי. He says that Naomi is selling the plot of land that belonged to Elimelech, their brother. What is difficult here is the Hebrew word מָכְרָה. It is Qal Perfect, which means it is rendered literally, “She sold.” Did Naomi already sell the land? Verse five prohibits a sale, since Boaz charges פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי to purchase the land, and there is no mention of a waiting period in accord with the law if it was previously sold.⁸ As in this case, the Qal Perfect can have a present meaning. In this case, the verb ought to be translated, “She is selling,” or, “She is going to sell.” One commentator argues that since the land itself was not sold, only the right to use the land could be purchased, she in fact was not selling the land but was surrendering her rights to the use of the land.⁹ This understanding seems logical enough, but the text does not strongly support it. Perhaps the text is literally, “She is going to sell,” but in the back of the minds of the audience it was understood that she was selling her rights to the land. In any case, a transaction is in view; it is the goods that are being purchased that are in dispute for this particular commentator. The Septuagint notes that the land was given to Naomi and does not have the idea of a purchase. This issue is not easily resolved. It seems as though the Septuagint translation wants to avoid Naomi selling land in any case, and so interprets it to mean that Naomi was given the plot of land Boaz was talking about. The Septuagint reading is very unlikely to be original, since it can be explained from the more difficult reading. It is somewhat problematic for a woman to be in charge of selling land. The Septuagint wants to avoid this problem and has strayed from the original reading. To sum up this situation, we can be certain that a transaction is in view, but all the specific details surrounding the transaction are uncertain.

Boaz continued speaking in verse 4. He literally said, “I said I will uncover your ears to say,” meaning, “I said I will reveal to you by saying.” Boaz is saying that he has set out to inform פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי of his duties. What were his duties? Boaz explicitly stated the duties, and he underscored the legal ramifications of his decisions, since they were at the gate with 10 elders. He said, “Buy the plot of land before the ones sitting down and before the elders of my people.” Boaz charges him to buy the land Naomi is selling, which is the responsibility of the next-of-kin. One commentator has argued that there are two groups present at the meeting, as indicated by the double use of נֶגֶב.¹⁰ Another commentator argues that this double use is a reiteration. The second use is in apposition to the first to note the same group. In other words, there is only one group present.¹¹ Given the setting from verse 1, we should agree with the latter commentator and take the double use of נֶגֶב to be an appositional statement in reference to the same group. Boaz charges the גֹאֵל to purchase the land in the presence of the 10 elders he had assembled at the gate. He conditionally states, “If you will redeem, redeem.” In other words, “If you intend to act as kin, do it!” The second “redeem” is a command. He is firmly stating that if he intends to act as kin, he needs to do it promptly. But Boaz does not stop there. He continues his conditional statement, saying, “And if he will not redeem declare it to me.” Here we must stop to consider some important textual issues.

The text is written as “he will redeem.” However, many manuscript versions have “you will redeem.” It is odd to have the text in the third person while directly speaking to the גֹאֵל. It is problematic to have it in the third person. But it is precisely for this reason that we can say that “he will redeem” is the original text, for it explains the change in the other manuscripts into the second person (and not the other way around). If it was original, since it is difficult, later scribes would have changed it to the second person to make it easier and more in harmony with the context. Given this reason alongside of the fact that there are more manuscripts in support of the third person, the correct reading is “he will redeem.” It should also be noted that this verb is not passive, so any translation wishing to interpret it as “it will be redeemed” is not correct.¹²

If the גֹאֵל would not redeem the land, then Boaz requested that it be declared to him so that he would know, for there was no one else to redeem the land. But Boaz was next after the גֹאֵל he was confronting. The text reads, “and I will know,” but in the margins of the Hebrew Bible there is a marking indicating that the text should be audibly read as “and I may know.” The difference between the two is important. The former is incomplete, which is understood as an action to be done in the future. The imperfect makes the verb as a result of the declaration. The latter is causitive, which is understood to cause an action to be done. The cohortative makes the verb function as the purpose of the declaration. In this case, the text is written as imperfect, but it is understood by the scribes to be cohortative. In other words, although it is written as imperfect, and this is the original text, it is understood to be cohortative, so that it is not translated “and I will know,” but rather, “and I may know.”¹³

For the first time in the narrative, the גֹאֵל speaks. He said, “I will redeem.” However, he responds with the imperfect rather than the perfect. The perfect would be used if it were an official declaration, but since he responded with the imperfect, he was indicating that he was willing to perform the duty of the גֹאֵל, but at the same time he was leaving the option open for Boaz to take over.¹⁴

In the end, Boaz took the position of גֹאֵל and from his line came King David and eventually Jesus Christ. Boaz was not only a leader, but he was a valiant and noble leader. He helped, by the power and guidance of the Lord, to set things right for Naomi and Ruth, so that Naomi could override her previous declaration to be called Bitter (Mara) and instead be called Pleasant (Naomi). As for “So and so,” we do not know what became of him. We do know that Scripture has purposefully left as much as his name out.

In this text, we come to an important truth. We need to be led by God and to do what is right. Boaz was led by God to do what was right in relationship to his relatives. How often do we complain about having to go meet with relatives in our setting today? It should not be so. Family is important. The Bible places a strong emphasis on the importance of family, including relatives. God honors those who stand by the needs of their family. Boaz was honored by eventually having his lineage blessed with kingship; in addition, he was blessed when his lineage took on the Messiah, God’s chosen one. Therefore, we need to do what is right as God has instructed us to do, including with our family. If anyone has a relative in need, so long as it is possible, come to that relative’s aid. Lend them money without requiring a return. Loan them possessions. Tend to them when they are sick, or when they are near death. Do not forsake family; hold on to relatives.

A family had a grandmother who was a heavy smoker. She developed emphysema and needed an oxygen tank to help her breathe. Eventually, she developed lung cancer. She was in a terrible amount of pain. However, her family did not come to her aid. She was a bitter woman. For some reason or another, she treated her daughter-in-laws very terribly. Her grandchildren suffered psychologically from the verbal abuse that she shot at her sons’ wives. But her sons did not do what is honoring to the Lord. They did not aid their mother. She died bitterly. The story of Ruth demands that we do differently. If we ever find ourselves in that position, we should tend to our mothers even if they have dealt bitterly with us and with our wives. We need to spread the love of God to everyone, including those who hurt, and especially to our family. Just as Boaz acted, so also should we take leadership and honor God by coming to the aid of our family.

Bibliography

Gray, James. The Biblical Museum: A collection of notes, explanatory, homiletic, and illustrative, on the Holy Scriptures, especially designed for the use of ministers, bible-students, and Sunday school teachers. Vol. 3. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Company, year not found.

Broch, Yitzchak. Ruth: The book of Ruth in Hebrew and English with a Talmudic-Midrashic commentary. 2nd ed. Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1983.

Bush, Frederic. Word Biblical Commentary: Ruth, Esther. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, John Watts, eds. Vol. 9. Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1996.

Campbell, Edward. Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1975.

Zlatowitz, Meir. The Book of Ruth. 2nd ed. Brooklyn, New York: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1993.

Today and tomorrow I am answering questions from fabulous commenter Artemis: “Hi. I guess my question is why you decided to place, and how you came to that decision? Maybe you covered that already but I only discovered your blog about a month ago. And what made you choose Ruth and Nora?” If you have a question, lay it on me.

How did I pick Ruth and Nora? Well, although I was not able to use the agency I first contacted (instead I had to use an agency from the state in which I lived, an agency about which I have many unpleasant things to say), I started out thinking that I would be working with them—so I looked through the couples on their website first. I had a long list of things that I wanted, some more important than others:

• I wanted a stay-at-home parent. I know that many excellent parents put their kids into daycare—and, in fact, Cricket may start daycare next fall—but I don’t like it, personally.
• I wanted the couple to live in a big city. I’ve lived in big cities and tiny towns, and felt trapped in the small towns.
• I wanted Democrats. Obviously I can’t choose what beliefs his parents share with Cricket, but—during the entrustment, Ruth talked about wanting Cricket to grow up with a strong sense of social justice. How great is that?!
• I wanted a gay or lesbian couple. This was one of my more flexible criteria, and in fact I shortlisted several straight couples. Here was my thinking: I had been lurking adoption forums for awhile before I made my choice, and I saw a number of women adopting because of infertility who had a great deal of grief and rage, some of which got taken out on the birthmothers. I can’t tell you how many times I saw the “pregnant, crack-addicted sixteen-year-old” nastiness, and as a twenty-five-year-old woman who used no drugs and was in a monogamous relationship…I wasn’t impressed, let’s just say. I know that there are many, many straight couples adopting because of infertility who are generous, kind, awesome people. But I couldn’t find a way to pick them out based on their “Dear Birthmother” letters. =/ In Dan Savage’s book, he talks about feeling that being able to adopt was an amazing privilege, and I thought, What a great way to come into adoption. I want that.
• I wanted a couple who were religious, but not fundamentalist.
• I wanted a couple with no more than one child already. I grew up fundamentalist, and it left me with a bias against a great many things, large families among them. My mother didn’t have enough time and attention for all four of us; I wanted Cricket to be the center of somebody’s universe. That said, it wasn’t important to me that he be an only child, and if all goes as planned, he won’t be. But I do like it that he will have had a couple of years as the star of the show.
• I wanted them to own their own home. A lot of money wasn’t important to me, and in fact Ruth and Nora are not well off—but they have enough money to have bought a house and to be able to get Cricket anything he needs.

There’s one thing that wasn’t on my list going into the process that ended up being incredibly important; Ruth and Nora looked genuinely happy in their picture. I would say that more than half of the couples in the pool did not look really happy in their picture, but Ruth and Nora seemed glad to be next to each other, glad to be wherever they were. It was a nice bonus that Ruth is a vegetarian, like me; I was pretty sure that they lived in the Emerald City, where I planned to move. I thought that I would get along best with Nora—she actually looked like someone I would have dated—but in fact Ruth and I have ended up building a close friendship, while I’m just amiably not close to Nora.

By the time that I first spoke to them, I was sure that they were the ones. They were fairly reserved during that first conversation, which I now know was a good sign—they wanted the right match, not just any match—but at the time it made me feel as though I had to win them over, rather than vice versa. After that conversation, I got a copy of their full profile, which felt to me as though I was just confirming what I already knew: Yes, yes, these are the ones. After a second conversation in which I explained that I still wanted to match with them, they planned a trip to visit. It went well. =)

It’s funny; I still look at the agency website sometimes, see who is in the pool. There are couples waiting whom I evaluated back in the day—there is even one couple I liked, but their Dear Birthmother letter says so little about them that I didn’t seriously consider them. I even—and this is strange—will pick out the couple I would choose if I had to pick today. Right now, it’s a charming gay couple with a three-year-old daughter (if you wondered).

Awesome slippers

Marissa _______________________________________ Ruth

Marissa _______________________________________ Ruth

The book of Ruth is, in short, awesome.  The story is intense, suspenseful, thrilling, a bit risqué, and mightily redemption focused.  By the end of chapter 1 there is nothing but bitterness and covenant curse present for leaving the land of promise.  Elimelech and his two sons Chilion and Mahlon are dead.  Orpah turns back for Moab while Naomi and Ruth arrive in Bethlehem empty and hopeless.  This is as bleak as it can be for two women in a society like this one.  Who will take care of them?  Where will they get food?  How will they survive?

Then throughout the rest of chapters 2-4 we meet Boaz and see the wonderful story of redemption unfold before our eyes.  You see, Naomi and Ruth were full of bitterness, having no hope any longer in this present life.  We are like Naomi and Ruth, bitter, having no hope in this life, empty, with no reason for living day-to-day.  But then comes Boaz, who takes Ruth and Naomi under his wing as their kinsman redeemer.  Just as Boaz redeemed Ruth and therefore Naomi also, Christ has redeemed us.  Christ is the greater Boaz who redeems us, His people, from bitterness and the covenant curse of Adam.  But what is astonishing is that Christ did not redeem us according to the levirate marriage laws of Deut. 25 like Boaz redeemed Ruth.  Christ redeemed us from the curse of the covenant by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13).  In this way, we see that Boaz is a type of Christ.  He points forward to the greater Redeemer who will one day come.  Ruth exists to point us to Christ.

Today Ruth and I went out and did some off camera flash work. The weather was kind of nice and we had fun. We wanted to go to Birds Hill Park but that would have been too long of a drive.

Photo thought – I need to find more people to photgraph. As well as a more portable reflector.

Here are a few of the pics from today: