A lot of people do not realise the outright hypocricy towards Gods institution of mariage that the invention of "dowry" or "bridal PRICE" as it truly is.
Often people will give the example of Jacob and Laban when Jacob came to get Laban's daughter's hand in marriage.
Because people often try to JUSTIFY the rights of "bridal pricing", they take laban's side and skip ANY SORT OF ACKNWLDGEMENT OF WRONG DOING ON HIS PART and immediately suppose "well Jacob had to WORK seven years FOR THE WIFE HE WANTED", yet it is FAILED mentality that cannot even acknowledge that the entire SWITCHING OF BRIDES at the last moment AND WITHOUT THE RECEIVING HUSBANDS KNOWLEDGE is in fact AN EVIL ACT and not anything rhat justifies 1)BRIDAL PRICE or even 2)MULTIPLE MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS, as many people even forget to see how throughout the old testament, one of Gods sovreign struggles was to reinstate MONOGOMY as in ONE HUSBAND ONE WIFE, which because of man made traditiona being incorrectly splashed across mosaic law, had begun to embrace the very evil that was the problem in the first place.
Frankly speaking, Jacob would have had ONE WIFE if it had not been for the GREED and jealousy that Laban portrayed in causing Jacobs marriage to become a TRAP.
Take note, that it is also EVIL that rachel or leah had no say nor ability to SPEAK OUT even ON THEIR OWN BEHALF, one being given the chance to say "you cant force him to pay for my hand in marriage, it is not for sale, if you want a gift, we will both return with it when we have something because GOD WILL HONOUR OUR MARRIAGE" and countering the deceitful act that was conceiled by the traditional BEING GIVEN IN MARRAIGE as oposed to GIVING ONESELF IN MARRIAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL COMMITMENT(Between Her and Jacob exclusively).
It should be taken note of, a couple of scriptures such as when Jesus adressed the Pharisees and saducees about following the tradition of their forefathers by washing hands and had to also highlight the CURSE of "Corban Law" where the idea pf bridal price and dowry come from, stipulating that children are something that parents aught to PROFIT FROM.
Such teaching renders the girl child and male child helpless to or exposed to different influences that rationalize ones husbandry with the wrong conditions and foundation that are ALWAYS rooted on MONEY or spme sort of alterior MATERIAL VALUE which causes them to exageratedly objectify their husbandry and idea of marriage.
Mathew 15:1-11 where people do not realise that he is saying that man made tradition around attempting to apply THIRD PARTY sanctification makes the power of God come to no effect.
This should be THOROUGHLY looked at when it comes to what people call "church doctrine" and the reality that there are no such prerequsites writen of in the bible about relationships.
The error in man made judgement can be examined in this manner.
As i have just said, the institution of mariage sanctity and the ONENESS OF FLESH between TWO(a male and female) of which answerable question is unto eternity, HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE ADAMS conceived gift of His Helper Eve in the garden of eden.
Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
THIS does not TRADITIONALY(according to man) add the words "father and mother'S HOUSE" as most african and ome modernised western kinds of culture try to persist about the idea and consecration of the FACILITATION of marriage and marital relationships between spouses of ALL ages.
IN FACT, the FOLLOWNG and END LINE of the chapter exposes MORE the FOLLY of the Worlds exageration and denial of the SANCTITY of "FLESHLY NAKEDNESS", where husbandry is comoromised for public sexual apeal, reasoned and bargained with via degrees of personality and peer status as well as envisioned as a sense and idea of "success", and yhen manipualted and used as a form of entertainemt in all these twisted forms of presentation by means of the ideal sanctity of nakedness as it etirely pertains to husbandry.
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Since adam and eve were the ONLY man and woman on the earth at that time, THIS MEANS NAKEDNES IS >>>STRICTLY<<< BETWEEN A HUSBAND AND HIS WIFE and is to have NO APEAL of OTHER PUBLIC INFLUENTIAL as well as acknowledging that THIS PUBLIC INFLUENTIAL >>IS THE REASON FOR CLOTHING<< meaning FOR ANY ENCOUNTERS OR CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC NATURE (covering/girding/concealment/preservation of husbandry) IS TO BE CONSIDERED.
No comments:
Post a Comment