2. Marriage and Man (Remastered)

Marriage and Man

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture is Genesis 2:15-20; and our subject, ‘Marriage and Man.’

“And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

We have begun the study of the Seventh Commandment, the meaning of marriage, and the meaning of the violation of the laws of marriage. And first of all we have been considering marriage this week, marriage and man, then marriage and women, and so on, and then to the laws regulating it. According to Scripture, man can only be understood in terms of God and His sovereign purpose in man’s creation. And according to Genesis 1:26-28, God created man in His own image, that is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion. And he created him to exercise dominion over the earth and to subdue it.

The commandment to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” is an aspect of man’s call to exercise dominion over the earth. Man, thus, is to be understood in terms of God's Kingdom. Man is called to manifest God's law-order over a progressively developed and subdued earth. Man is thus a religious creature. Man can only be understood properly by reference to his calling, his creation.

Adam’s calling, and man’s calling thus had two aspects; both can be summed up in terms of work. The first, a practical aspect, the care of Eden. Dressing and caring for it. ‘Dressing’ means tillage. Even in paradise the trees needed pruning, they needed care, they needed tilling, the vegetables needed attention, so there was work in paradise. 

Second, there was the cognitive aspect, or knowledge. Adam was called by God to name the creatures, and as we have pointed out previously in the Bible and in particular in the Old Testament, to ‘name’ means to classify, to understand, to describe. So that this was a scientific, a cognitive calling. By work and knowledge man was called to subdue the earth and develop it. Man was required to extend his dominion geographically as well as in knowledge, by increasing and multiplying.

Man’s calling, therefore, can be termed ‘work,’ both practical down to earth work, and knowledge, both can be summed up as ‘work.’ Any vocation, therefore, whereby man extends his dominion under God, and to God's purpose, and develops the earth and subdues it, is a holy calling, a godly vocation. It is extremely wrong, it is anti-Biblical, to speak of a ‘holy calling’ as the ministry or the priesthood, as is commonly done in both Protestant and Catholic circles; this is a violation of Scripture. Every calling whereby man works to extend his dominion over the natural world and to subdue it, and to develop it under God, is a holy calling. Thus, any area of production; whether it be the retailing end or the producing end, is a holy calling when exercised under God. 

Moreover, according to Scripture, man was created, not as a child, but as a mature man in terms of mature responsibility. Therefore, according to Biblical psychology, man is not to be understood by reference to child psychology or animal psychology, but with reference to mature responsibility. As a result, whenever a man is interpreted in terms of anything other than mature responsibility, that psychology is destructive of man. Again, there is a radical destructiveness in any meaningless or frustrating work. Since man was created to assume responsibility in terms of work, in any social order which penalizes work as our social order does, and rewards the drone, has therefore a destructive effect, a penalizing effect, on the working, the knowing man.

Now as we analyze our Scripture, certain things appear. Man was required to know himself, first in terms of his calling, before he was given his helpmeet, Eve. Adam worked for an undefined, but a very long period of time. First, after all even a rough and a general classification of the natural world takes time. So Adam was very obviously a bachelor for some years.

Now as we analyze the significance of this passage, we find first of all, Adam was given Eve, not in fulfillment of a natural or simply sexual need, although this is recognized in our text, but after delay, in fulfillment of his need for a helpmeet in terms of his calling, a helper to him in his life and work under God as God’s covenant man. 

Thus, second, it means that the role of the woman is to be a helper in man’s governmental function, that is, to exercise dominion. Man’s calling is the Kingdom of God, to exercise dominion over the earth under God. And woman’s creation and calling is in terms of this also, to be man’s helper in this function.

Third, God only created Eve and gave her to man, to Adam, after Adam had proved himself responsible by discharging his duties faithfully and well for some period of time. As a result, this makes clear that responsibility is a prerequisite to marriage for man. This is why later on the dowry system came into being. A man had to accumulate a dowry, roughly equivalent to three years’ labor, of capital, which he presented to the Bride as the dowry to establish he marriage and give her security in the even that something happened to him in he future.

Fourth, the family is a central aspect of man’s dominion. It is there that he exercises his authority in his teaching function to bring about the covenant family as a central aspect of the kingdom of God. 

Fifth, Marriage thus is clearly of divine ordination and was instituted together with man’s calling, to work and to know in paradise.

Sixth, marriage is the normal state for man. God declared: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” And Jesus Christ declared in Matthew 19:10-12 that marriage was the responsibility of all mature men, unless they were physically incapacitated, or had a calling to remain single. 

Seventh, we must say that while the family is a part of man’s calling, it is not its totality, whereas the woman’s calling is in terms of her husband and family, but a man in terms of his work under God.

Eighth, before marriage man had to show two things; the pattern of obedience to God, and a pattern of responsibility. And therefore, marriage involves a break. “Therefore,” says verse twenty-four, “shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife.” There is change which is necessary for progress and for growth. He breaks with the old home, not breaking as far as love and affection is concerned, but he establishes a new area of authority; this makes for development and progress.

Ninth, it is important to examine the Hebrew word for ‘bridegroom.’ It means, ‘the circumcised.’ And for mother-in-law and father-in-law, ‘he or she who circumcises.” Now, of course this does not refer to the literal operation, because all Hebrew males, according to the law, were circumcised after birth on the eighth day. What it does refer to is a spiritual fact; that is, the mother-in-law and the father-in-law were the ones to circumcise in that they checked thoroughly into the young man in order to make sure that he was spiritually of the covenant; that he was a mature, a responsible person, a believing man. And hence they were called “the circumcisers” in that they checked on the reality of his profession, of his faith. 

And hence we have here the beginning of the principle of no mixed marriages. Marriage is thus closely linked with the covenant, with faith. The Catholic marriage service concludes with a blessing after the marriage mass which invokes the Old Testament covenant formula, and I think is very beautiful and fitting for the marriage service. And it reads: 

“May the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob be with you, and may he fulfill in you his blessing, so that you may see your children’s children to the third and fourth generation and afterward possess everlasting and boundless life. Through the help of our Lord Jesus Christ, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, God, forever and ever.” ⁱ

Finally, marriage is the ordained sexual relationship between man and woman, but, as our Scripture makes clear, marriage cannot be understood simply in terms of sex. When marriage is reduced to sex, marriage disintegrates and amoral sex replaces it. Marriage and all things else must be understood in terms of God, and man especially is to be understood in terms of God and God's calling to work, or to work and knowledge.

Wherever there is frustration in terms of man’s calling, the result is poor health for man physically, mentally, and sexually; he no longer has the ability to rest. It is of interest when you talk to very old men who worked in their day years ago, ten to twelve hours a day, that they had no trouble in those days when it came to resting. They relaxed readily and easily when they were through working, and they slept well. Why? Because in those days before World War I, it was an age when man had a sense of optimism, a belief in progress, the world was moving forward, God's dominion was being extended everywhere, and so in this confidence they felt a satisfaction in their work, and they could rest when they put down their work.

But, any dislocation in man’s calling is a dislocation of his total life, because man cannot be reduced to anything other than that which God called him. And just as marriage cannot be reduced to sex or to love, however these important these are, but must be understood in terms of God’s Law as the essential bond; so man cannot be understood in terms of himself or of his love for his wife, or anything other than God's calling. And the thing that is prior to a man in his life is not his wife or his children, but work; this is of God’s creation.

And this is the tragedy of an apostate age when man’s work no longer has meaning. The woman can see clearly the futility in what man is doing. But too often man’s reaction as things are futile around him is to work all the harder, and when it is carried to the nth degree, work becomes a substitute in man’s life for religion. Work is a way of accomplishing things, this is of God's doing. But when work is futile men tend to work harder to try somehow to undo it. It is man’s answer to all his problems, his way to dominion, his way to problem solving. And so, men are unable to rest in an age when work has no meaning. And women become aware of the futility of work, but men are unwilling to admit it, it is their life. And so, this is one of the tragedies of an apostate age. What it does to men. Work is no longer an answer, since the world of work has moved out from under God.

Long ago, Dostoyevsky, as he described his experiences in Siberia about a century and a quarter ago, said that it was not hard labor which destroyed convicts. In fact, the hard labor could be very healthy. Were they building a fort or a building? Oh they could be worked from sun up until sun down, and they could get strong and healthy doing that work, no matter how much they were driven, as long as they were fed well. But, if the guards wanted to destroy the men, all they needed to do was to set them to useless work; moving a pile of boulders from one side of the prison yard to the other, and then back again. And no matter how slowly the men worked, the meaninglessness of it shattered the men in a very short time, it broke them completely. And this is what meaningless work does, and of course this is what socialism does because it progressively renders men meaningless because there is no dominion in work apart from God and His law-order apart from meaning. 

One of the things that characterized the industrial revolution of course was the development of factories. And one of the interesting and rather touching sidelights of that revolution was the jarring effect on men. Why? After a while they got adjusted to it, and they had a greater sense of dominion because they could produce more. But it destroyed the factory in the home, the workshop in the home, and this is hard on men. There was a delight men had, and still have in some parts of the world, of having their tools under their roof. And if you go today to certain parts of Europe; to Switzerland or Austria or Germany or Scotland, into the country areas, the men have a special pride in having their tools under their roof with them because they identified so strongly with their tools.

I was interested last night when we were at a welcome home party for a doctor who had just been to Europe. And what did he do when he left to Europe for his vacation? He took his little black bag with him in spite of all the teasing. And the high point of the trip for him was he had a chance to use that little black bag. This is how strongly a man identifies with his work, and this is why it is so necessary that a man’s work be firmly under God because work under God is man’s life, and man is best understood in terms of it.

Therefore in our day, the tragedy is that both men and work have moved out from under God with a shattering effect upon society and upon marriage. There is no hope for society unless society again is under God; then men again will find themselves, and their marriages and their work will show forth the glory there is in man’s life when it is under God.

Let us pray. 

* * *

Our Lord and our God, we give thanks unto thee that thou hast called us to know ourselves in terms of thee and of thy calling, to find our place in thy law-order, and to exercise dominion under thee, to extend thy kingdom from Pole to Pole, to subdue and develop the earth according to thy Word. And we pray, our Father, that thou wouldst enable us by thy grace to summon men and nations again to thy Word and thy law-order that the kingdoms of this world might become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. Bless us to this purpose. In Jesus' name. Amen.

* * *

Are there any questions now, first of all with respect to our lesson?

Yes?

[Audience Member] Was there an engagement service in Bible times? ⁱⁱ

[Rushdoony] Yes. In Biblical times the engagement was the real service. The engagement in Biblical times was the getting together of the young man, and very often of his parents, with the parents of the bride-to-be. And at that time the terms of the marriage were settled. First, they examined him thoroughly as to his faith and character. And of course usually they knew a great deal about him, it was a stable society. But nonetheless they satisfied themselves on that point, and then the next point, the dowry. If he did not have it, which was often the case, well, when would he have it? Then it was settled. They were man and wife, even though they didn’t live together, say for a year or two years or three until he had accumulated the dowry. Thus, it was a contract and a divorce was necessary if that were broken. So though they never lived together the engagement was the marriage ceremony.

[Audience Member] Was there an external ratification of the contract? ⁱⁱⁱ

[Rushdoony] Well, a Levite usually came in and ratified it, yes. And there was a great deal of ceremony in the way of banqueting. Then later at the actual wedding there would be a big feast, but the actual service was at the engagement.

Now, in the Christian church, this system carried over for a long time, and it has only broken down gradually in recent centuries although in Medieval Europe the whole thing became paganized, and it was the bride’s parents who gave the dowry to the young man, which perverted and destroyed the whole thing. In which case, which still prevails in Europe, the young man went shopping around for the girl who had the most money, which destroyed the whole purpose of the Biblical system, which was that the man had to prove himself responsible.

In the Christian service it was basically a religious service; it was between the families, and it was in the church. The civil aspect, a civil contract, came in a couple of centuries ago. So now it is a three-way contract. It is a personal contract rather than a family contract, it is a religious contract, and it is a civil contract, and this is what the vows are about. When the couple takes the vows they are ratifying a contract. First they go to the County Clerk’s office, and they get a contract which is filed with the contract of the County, so that is the contract with the state, a civil contract that the two enter into with the state because the state has a stake in stable and secure homes.

Second, they take the vows to God. The first vow in the ceremony is taken to God; that’s the religious contract. The third, the personal, “I, John, take thee, Mary” with one another.

Does that answer?

Yes? Another question.

[Audience Member] Was it Eve’s fault that Adam sinned? ^iv

[Rushdoony] Well, we will come to that next week when we deal with Eve, but I will just say this, don’t be too hard on Eve because after all Adam was still in charge, and he chose to go along, so we can’t pass the buck there. This of course is exactly what Adam and Eve did; when Adam was confronted by God, he said: “It’s not my fault, it’s the woman whom thou gavest to be with me. It is your fault, you gave her to me, to give me, and I did eat!” And of course she didn’t take the responsibility either, which was of course a product of their sin.

Yes?

[Audience Member] What of the stories of Lilith in the Garden of Eden, Dr. Rushdoony? ^v

[Rushdoony] That is myth, pure myth. Lilith was supposedly another woman who was there in Eden; where she came from they don’t say, unless Satan created her, but that was a part of the mythology that crept up in the Middle Ages. And there was a lot of humor connected with it, so we shouldn’t take it too seriously, that they really believed in it. They did invent a lot of stories in humor that are now taken as though they believed a lot of things.

But you know the story of course of Adam and Eve, that he came home late one night, and she said: “Who have you been with?” and he said: “Well, who is there to be with?”

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you comment on the requirement that marriage be announced publicly, Dr. Rushdoony? ^vi

[Rushdoony] Yes. That is right, this is an old, old custom. There had to be the bands published, that is, an announcement of marriage; I believe originally it was three months. Yes. Then it was reduced to pre-announcement. But I believe originally, centuries ago, the bands had to be published in church three months. And the service, I may add, was originally at the conclusion of the church service, so there would be the regular morning worship and at the conclusion of the worship the couple would come forward to be married before the whole congregation. And the purpose of publishing the bands that way was, of course, first of all the contract had to be ratified in the church that had been made between the couple, and then to make sure that there were no objections, that there were no liabilities on the part of either, that they had not entered into any contracts or illicit relationship with somebody else. 

So it was a part of the fact that the marriage involved the community. And everyone in the congregation was present at the service, it was not by invitation. And I think there is a great deal in favor of that.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you comment on the particular role of the father in the wedding ceremony? ^vii

[Rushdoony] Oh yes. Now, this is a very significant point, the role of the father in the marriage ceremony, and of course this has been destroyed in some of the services where the father is supposed to say, “Her mother and I give her to you.” What is the role of the father in the service? Well, up to that point, the girl is under the authority of her father. Now, this has been historically an important point;, she has been strictly under the authority of her father, who has had the responsibility of her care, of her training, and of her discipline. At that point the father takes the right hand of his daughter, and puts it in the right hand of the bridegroom. He transfers authority of the girl from himself to the groom, so that he is saying, “The authority, the care, the provision that I have provided is now your responsibility.” So it is a transfer of authority and of responsibility, that is its significance. So it is not just a meaningless part of the service, it is a very important part, and the supervision he has exercised religiously, this is an important aspect of it. You see, nowadays if there is any religion in the family too often it is the mother who exercises it; she makes sure there is any family worship or prayer at the table, or the children get off to Sunday school, and so on and so forth. But this is not Biblical. This is the significance of the Fathers role in part, and this is what he transfers to the groom. It is now his responsibility to exercise authority and religious leadership. And of course in this respect, most men nowadays have been failures.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you comment on the disappearance of the ‘breach of promise’ in law? ^viii

[Rushdoony] Yes, a very interesting point. The breach of promise has of course been dropped by law in recent years, and it was something of a fraud in the twenties and thirties when it was being used because the old relationship was gone. But the breach of promise has its origin in the background that this was a real contract, that there was a real transfer of property being negotiated, very often the father would add a dowry. Now the old American custom for generations in this country was that the bride’s father added to what the young man brought by giving, this was always a basic part, as far as they possibly could, a heifer; so that there would be milk for the new family. So that he was endowed with a heifer. 

Last night I heard of one doctor report of his mother’s dowry, I believe it was; it included a team of oxen, a logging chain eight feet long, and several other things, so she had a good dowry.

They are adding a lot of harmless and cute features nowadays that really have no basic part of the original service. I might add, this dowry of the oxen and all was in the Dakotas in the last century.

Yes?

[Audience Member] What about these glitz and glamour weddings of the ungodly? ^ix

[Rushdoony] Well, at that time the communities were pretty uniformly religious, and those who were not did not bother to have any ceremony at all, they just lived together. Because, after all, what was God to them, so why bother with any such ceremony? And I think that makes sense. I really don’t see the point to some of these Hollywood marriages; I think it would be a lot more honest to move in together. After all, they don’t believe in God, and they don’t take the marriage vows too seriously, and to get married over and over and over again, year in and year out, why bother with ceremonies? Why bother? And of course, that is what it was centuries ago.

Now they could be penalized sometimes for that sort of relationship if it were of the sort that they was corrupting to the community, but if they were just living in a common law relationship, the community left them alone.

Here is a significant fact; until World War I, the ratio of births to such marriages was extremely low. In other words, for every hundred persons, or fifty couples, let us say, or a hundred couples, for every hundred couples that were churchgoing people, there were several hundred children born. For every hundred couples that were not churchgoing people, there was barely reproduction at best. For every hundred couples that were in trouble with the law and in and out of trouble, there were practically no children born. In other words, when you had a free situation, when you didn’t buttress people with welfare, the birthrate for irresponsible people dropped so drastically that they bred themselves out.

Now I have a book that has just come out; I haven’t seen it yet. I got a letter from my publisher saying it is in the mail, The Myth of Overpopulation when I wrote that I dealt with this matter of what welfare does to population, and I dealt in particular with the Negro. I went back to the pre-Civil War census figures, and the post-civil war census figures. In the pre-Civil War period, there were free negroes; both in the North and in the South, and in spite of the fact that every year the number of free negroes increased, because there were more set free, so it was not just those who were already free but new freed men, they could not reproduce, their birth rate was that low. Whereas, the slave negroes were revealing a very high birthrate. Why? Because slavery is a welfare society. 

Now, when emancipation took place, the birthrate overall for negroes began to drop rapidly, very rapidly. So that by 1920, the negroes were, percentage-wise, lower in ratio to the general American population than they were in 1860. In other words, they could not hold their own in a free society, they were becoming a diminishing factor, they were breeding themselves out. Of course what has happened since the New Deal has been a sky-rocketing birth rate among them because of welfare, which is a return to slavery, slavery being a welfare society of sorts.

So, what was happening throughout the centuries to Western European men was that there was a progressive genetic improvement precisely because the worst element was breeding out, and now the reverse has been taking place for a couple of generations. You can get this in my book.

Yes?

[Audience Member] Could you comment on slavery. Is there an absolute Biblical prohibition on slavery?  ^x

[Rushdoony] Well, we dealt with slavery earlier, as an inferior way of life, but slavery is a reality of history; you either have slavery to individuals, personal ownership, or state ownership.

There were abuses in slavery but they have been grossly exaggerated, and by and large the negroes increased and flourished under slavery, and they showed it in their birth records to a degree, they did not flourish from 1865-1920 or 30 approximately, so they prospered under slavery, just the way they are prospering now. But that is the weakness of slavery, it is a welfare society. Now, it is a better welfare society I would say then socialism and communism, but it is basically a welfare society.

[Audience Member] Surely slavery is condemned throughout the Word of God. ^xi

[Rushdoony] No, there is no blanket condemnation of slavery. It is presented as an inferior way of life, and the believer is to avoid it. 

“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men..” ^xii

Yes?

[Audience Member] Weren’t the southerners pro-slavery, Dr. Rushdoony? ^xiii

[Rushdoony] Right, here is another myth that has been extensively propagated about the southerners being so pro-slavery. One out of eighteen southerners owned slaves, the other seventeen hated slavery, they resented it. The only reason why the South did not abolish slavery, there was only one state in the South that was genuinely pro-slavery, South Carolina. Now, that is a matter of extensive documentation, but the only reason the other states did not abolish slavery, even though they discuss it more than once, was, “What will we do with them after we free them?” And had some workable solution come about to resettle them elsewhere, it would have been welcomed by the Southerners. During the Civil War there was actually a measure that passed Congress, went to Lincoln and he signed it, to resettle all the negroes elsewhere, perhaps in some of the Caribbean Islands to be purchased, or somewhere else after the conclusion of the war.

Now as I say, this actually passed and was signed by Lincoln, and was supposed to become a matter of law to be operative after the war. But whether it was by design or by accident it was not sealed with the official seal, so this rendered it null and void, and before anything more could be done, Lincoln was assassinated.

[Audience Member] I’ve heard that there were, at the time of the outbreak of the Civil War, a good number of freed negroes in the South. ^xiv

[Rushdoony] Right, there were a sizeable number of negroes first of all, who were free. There were a sizeable number of free negroes in the South who were slave owners. This you don’t get very often, but many of the negroes who were freed in the South were men who were part white. They were often the illicit son or child of the owner, and he would free them, and they often had the intelligence of their fathers and became very successful and very, very wealthy slave owners.

Now, this is a fact that is left out, but those one out of eighteen slave owners in the South included a fair number of negroes. So why don’t they start suing their own people on that? The whole thing of course is a fraud from start to finish.

One of the interesting things I turned up this past week. Now, during the abolitionist days one of the most eloquent women speaking against slavery was a colored woman, Sojourner Truth. And she was a very godly woman, and a very remarkable woman. The story of Sojourner Truth is a very amazing one. And she had had her children, most of them, I think she had about a dozen or so children, sold out from under her, and her back was scarred from whipping. And she was one of the most eloquent speakers against slavery throughout the North. But there was a joke there that they didn’t tell people; she had been a slave in New York.

And you don’t get that in the books today, like Land of the Free and other such books when they speak of Sojourner Truth, she was a Northern slave. 

Our time is really up, but one or two questions. 

Yes

[Audience Member] It seems like they had their own ‘civil rights’ movement back in the days of the Civil War. ^xv

[Rushdoony] Very, very true. As the war progressed and the Radical Republicans became more and more bent on abolishing slaves. One of the Radical Republican congressmen from Pennsylvania, William Garrett Kelly made a statement: 

“Like it or not, the negro is the coming man in America.”

In other words, everything that you have today in the Civil Rights program, they were talking about, and they were going to ram it down the throats of people. In New York a fearful riot broke out, first against the draft, and second against the negroes. And for several days all of New York was characterized by rioting and looting, and mass murder of negroes of the most brutal sort, vicious. And there was this sort of thing throughout the North, and throughout the world. So you rarely get the true story of the rest of the day, what you get is an anti-southern diatribe, normally. 

One last question,

Yes?

[Audience Member] Was slavery really the primary issue underlying the Civil War, Dr. Rushdoony? ^xvi

[Rushdoony] Yes, slavery was not the prime issue, although it was greatly exploited and brought into perspective. The basic issue was ‘centralism’ as they called it then. We would call it ‘totalitarianism’ or ‘socialism.’ It was Federal power vs State rights. 

Now, there was a great deal to be criticized on both sides, but this was the basic issue, and the Radical Republicans of the day were very definitely socialistic. It’s quite a long story, but some of the ugliest politics in our history until now was conducted by Thaddeus Stevens, the leader of the Radical Republicans. And they came very close to destroying this country, and would have after they apparently assassinated Lincoln, had not Andrew Johnson, a very great President, blocked them at a fearful price. He himself a southerner, was the man who stemmed the tide. Grant sold out to the Radical Republicans, but Johnson before him had blocked it sufficiently that they never could get their program in, and Hayes, of course, scuttled it completely then.

But the one deciding vote that prevented the Radical Republicans from impeaching Johnson was cast by a new senator from Kansas, Senator Ross, and they hounded him the rest of his life for that. Someone someday ought to write the story of Senator Ross, and he did it purely in terms of character and a belief in his country because he saw what would happen to him; he knew, they threatened him openly. 

Well, our time is up.

i. “Marriage: The Rite of Communion.” In The New Saint Andrew Bible Missal, New Edition. Betzinger Brothers, New York, 1966, p. 972.

ii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

iii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

iv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

v.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

vii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

viii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

ix.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

x.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xii. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 7:23.

xiii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xiv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xvi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.