The Watchtower Society's commentary on Isaiah's prophecy Chapter.4 Vol.1

 Chapter Four

Jehovah’s House Lifted Up

Isaiah 2:1-5

“THEY shall beat their swords into ploughshares. And their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war any more.” These words are inscribed on a wall at the United Nations plaza in New York City. For decades the source of that quotation was not identified. Since the aim of the UN is to work toward global peace, it was easy to conclude that the quote originated with the founders of the UN, in 1945.

2 In 1975, however, the name Isaiah was chiseled into the wall below the quotation. It was then evident that the words were not of modern origin. They were, in fact, recorded as a prophecy over 2,700 years ago in what is now the 2nd chapter of the book of Isaiah. For millenniums lovers of peace have pondered over how and when the things Isaiah foretold would occur. There is no longer any need to wonder. Today we see before us the remarkable fulfilment of this ancient prophecy.

3 Who are the nations that beat their swords into ploughshares? Surely, they are not the modern-day political nations and governments. Until now these nations have developed swords, or weapons, both to wage war and to preserve “peace” through strength. If anything, the tendency has always been for nations to beat their ploughshares into swords! Isaiah’s prophecy finds fulfilment in representatives from all nations, people who worship Jehovah, “the God of peace.”—Philippians 4:9.

The Nations That Stream to Pure Worship

4 Isaiah chapter 2 begins with these words: “The thing that Isaiah the son of Amoz visioned concerning Judah and Jerusalem: And it must occur in the final part of the days that the mountain of the house of Jehovah will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, and it will certainly be lifted up above the hills; and to it all the nations must stream.”—Isaiah 2:1, 2.

5 Notice that what Isaiah foretells is not mere speculation. Isaiah is directed to record events that “must occur”—without fail. Whatever Jehovah purposes has “certain success.” (Isaiah 55:11) Evidently to give emphasis to the reliability of his promise, God inspired the prophet Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, to record in his book the same prophecy that is set out at Isaiah 2:2-4.—Micah 4:1-3.

6 When is Isaiah’s prophecy to be fulfilled? “In the final part of the days.” The NewInternational Version reads: “In the last days.” The Christian Greek Scriptures foretold features that would identify this period. Included among them are wars, earthquakes, pestilences, food shortages, and “critical times hard to deal with.”* (2 Timothy 3:1-5; Luke 21:10, 11) The fulfilment of such prophecies gives abundant evidence that we are living “in the final part of the days,” the last days of this present world system. Logically, then, we would expect to see fulfilled in our time the things that Isaiah foretold.

A Mountain in Which to Worship

7 In a few words, Isaiah paints a vivid prophetic picture. We see a lofty mountain, crowned by a glorious house, the temple of Jehovah. This mountain towers above surrounding mountains and hills. Yet, it is not foreboding or intimidating; it is appealing. Peoples of all nations yearn to ascend to the mountain of the house of Jehovah; theystream to it. This is easy to visualise, but what does it mean?

8 In Isaiah’s day hills and mountains are often associated with worship. For example, they serve as sites for idolatrous worship and for sanctuaries of false gods. (Deuteronomy 12:2; Jeremiah 3:6) However, the house, or temple, of Jehovah adorns the summit of Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. Faithful Israelites journey to Jerusalem three times a year and ascend Mount Moriah to worship the true God. (Deuteronomy 16:16) So the streaming of the nations to “the mountain of the house of Jehovah” pictures the gathering of many peoples to true worship.

9 Today, of course, God’s people do not gather at a literal mountain with a temple of stone. Jehovah’s temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by Roman armies in 70 C.E. Besides, the apostle Paul made it clear that the temple in Jerusalem and the tabernacle that preceded it were pictorial. They represented a greater, spiritual reality, “the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man.” (Hebrews 8:2) That spiritual tent is the arrangement for approaching Jehovah in worship based on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 9:2-10, 23) In harmony with this, “the mountain of the house of Jehovah” mentioned at Isaiah 2:2 represents the exalted pure worship of Jehovah in our time. Those embracing pure worship do not gather at any geographic location; they gather in unity of worship.

The Elevating of Pure Worship

10 The prophet says that “the mountain of the house of Jehovah,” or pure worship, would become “firmly established above the top of the mountains” and be “lifted up above the hills.” Long before Isaiah’s time, King David brought the ark of the covenant up to Mount Zion in Jerusalem, which was located 2,500 feet [760 m] above sea level. There the ark rested until it was transferred to the completed temple on Mount Moriah. (2 Samuel 5:7; 6:14-19; 2 Chronicles 3:1; 5:1-10) Thus, by Isaiah’s day the sacred ark had already been physically elevated and placed in the temple, in a position higher than the many surrounding hills used for false worship.

11 Of course, in a spiritual sense, Jehovah’s worship has always been superior to the religious practises of those who serve false gods. During our day, however, Jehovah has exalted his worship heaven high, above all forms of unclean worship, yes, far above all “the hills” and “the top of the mountains.” How so? Largely through the gathering together of those who want to worship him “with spirit and truth.”—John 4:23.

12 Christ Jesus referred to “a conclusion of a system of things” as a time of harvest when the angels would gather in “the sons of the kingdom”—those with the hope of ruling with Jesus in heavenly glory. (Matthew 13:36-43) Since 1919, Jehovah has empowered “the remaining ones” of these sons to share with the angels in the harvest work. (Revelation 12:17) Thus, to start with, “the sons of the kingdom,” Jesus’ anointed brothers, are the ones gathered. Then they share in a further gathering work.

13 During this time of harvest, Jehovah has progressively helped the anointed remnant to understand and apply his Word, the Bible. This too has contributed to the elevating of pure worship. Though ‘darkness itself covers the earth, and thick gloom the national groups,’ the anointed are “shining as illuminators” among humankind, having been cleansed and refined by Jehovah. (Isaiah 60:2; Philippians 2:15) “Filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension,” these spirit-anointed ones “shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”—Colossians 1:9; Matthew 13:43.

14 Moreover, others have streamed to “the mountain of the house of Jehovah.” Called by Jesus his “other sheep,” these have the hope of living forever on a paradise earth. (John 10:16; Revelation 21:3, 4) Starting in the 1930’s, they appeared by the thousands, then by the hundreds of thousands, and now by the millions! In a vision given to the apostle John, they are described as “a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues.”—Revelation 7:9.

15 The prophet Haggai foretold the appearance of this great crowd. He wrote: “This is what Jehovah of armies has said, ‘Yet once—it is a little while—and I am rocking the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry ground. And I will rock all the nations, and the desirable things of all the nations [those who join anointed Christians in pure worship] must come in; and I will fill this house with glory,’ Jehovah of armies has said.” (Haggai 2:6, 7) The existence of this still-growing “great crowd” and their anointed companions elevates, yes glorifies, pure worship in Jehovah’s house. Never before have so many been recorded as united in the worship of the true God, and this brings glory to Jehovah and his enthroned King, Jesus Christ. King Solomon wrote: “In the multitude of people there is an adornment of a king.”—Proverbs 14:28.

Worship Exalted in the Lives of People

16 Jehovah deserves all credit for the elevating of pure worship in our time. Still, those who approach him are privileged to share in this work. Just as it requires effort to climb a mountain, so, too, it requires effort to learn of and live according to God’s righteous standards. Like Christians in the first century, God’s servants today have left behind life-styles and practises that are not compatible with true worship. Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy persons, drunkards, and others have changed their ways and been “washed clean” in God’s sight.—1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

17 Typical is the experience of one young woman who wrote: “I once was lost with no hope. I lived a life of immorality and drunkenness. I had sexual diseases. I also sold drugs and just didn’t care about anything.” After studying the Bible, she made major changes in order to conform to God’s standards. Now she says: “I enjoy peace of mind, self-respect, a hope for the future, a real family and, best of all, a relationship with our Father, Jehovah.”

18 Even after coming to an approved standing before Jehovah, all must continue to elevate pure worship by giving it a place of prominence in their lives. Thousands of years ago, through Isaiah, Jehovah expressed his confidence that there would be multitudes today eager to make his worship the most important thing in their lives. Are you among them?

A People Taught Jehovah’s Way

19 Isaiah tells us more about those who embrace pure worship today. He says: “Manypeoples will certainly go and say: ‘Come, you people, and let us go up to themountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct usabout his ways, and we will walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion law will go forth, andthe word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.”—Isaiah 2:3.

20 Jehovah does not let his people wander about like lost sheep. Through the Bible and Bible-based publications, he imparts to them his “law” and his “word” so that they learn his ways. This knowledge equips them to “walk in his paths.” Out of hearts filled with appreciation and in harmony with divine direction, they speak to one another about the ways of Jehovah. They gather together at large conventions and in smaller groups—at Kingdom Halls and in private homes—so as to listen to and learn the ways of God. (Deuteronomy 31:12, 13) Thus they imitate the pattern of the early Christians, who met together to encourage and incite one another to abound in “love and fine works.”—Hebrews 10:24, 25.

21 They invite others to “go up” to the exalted worship of Jehovah God. How well this harmonises with the command Jesus gave to his disciples just before his ascension to heaven! He told them: “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19, 20) With divine backing, Jehovah’s Witnesses obediently go throughout the earth, teaching and making disciples, baptising them.

Swords Into Ploughshares

22 Now we come to the next verse, part of which is inscribed on the wall at the UN plaza. Isaiah writes: “He will certainly render judgement among the nations and set matters straight respecting many peoples. And they will have to beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up swordagainst nation, neither will they learn war anymore.”—Isaiah 2:4.

23 To achieve this would be no small accomplishment. Federico Mayor, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, once said: “All the obscenities of war, brought home to us nowadays by audio-visual equipment, do not seem able to halt the advance of the huge war machine set up and maintained over many centuries. Present generations have the almost impossible, Biblical task of ‘beating their swords into ploughshares’ and making the transition from an instinct for war—developed since time immemorial—to a feeling for peace. To achieve this would be the best and most noble act that the ‘global village’ could accomplish, and the best legacy to our descendants.”

24 The nations as a whole will never achieve this lofty goal. It is simply beyond their reach. Isaiah’s words are fulfilled by individuals from many nations, who are united in pure worship. Jehovah has “set matters straight” among them. He has taught his people to live at peace with one another. Truly, in a divided and strife-ridden world, they have figuratively beaten their “swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning shears.” How?

25 For one thing, they do not take sides in the wars of the nations. Shortly before Jesus’ death, armed men came to arrest him. When Peter lashed out with a sword to defend his Master, Jesus said to him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) Since then, Jesus’ footstep followers have beaten their swords into ploughshares and have refrained from taking up weapons to kill their fellow man and from supporting war efforts in other ways. They “pursue peace with all people.”—Hebrews 12:14.

Pursuing the Ways of Peace

26 The peace of God’s people goes far beyond a refusal to engage in warfare. Though they are found in more than 230 lands and represent countless languages and cultures, they enjoy peace with one another. In them is found a modern fulfilment of the words of Jesus, who said to his disciples in the first century: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) Christians today are “peacemakers.” (Matthew 5:9, footnote) They “seek peace and pursue it.” (1 Peter 3:11) Sustaining them is Jehovah, “the God who gives peace.”—Romans 15:33.

27 There are dramatic examples of those who have learnt  to be peacemakers. A young man writes of his early life: “Hard experience taught me how to defend myself. It made me tough and angry about life. I would always end up in fights. Each day, I would fight a different kid in the neighbourhood, sometimes with fists, sometimes with rocks or bottles. I grew up being very violent.” Eventually, however, he responded to the invitation to go to “the mountain of the house of Jehovah.” He learnt  God’s ways and became a peaceable servant of God.

28 Most of Jehovah’s servants do not come from such a violent background. Still, even in relatively small things—acts of kindness, forgiveness, and empathy—they strive to promote peace with others. Although imperfect, they endeavour to apply the Bible’s counsel to “continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause for complaint against another.”—Colossians 3:13.

A Future of Peace

29 Jehovah has done a marvellous thing in this “the final part of the days.” He has gathered from all nations people who want to serve him. He has taught them to walk in his ways, ways of peace. These are the ones who will survive the coming “great tribulation” and pass into a peaceful new world in which war will be abolished forever.—Revelation 7:14.

30 Swords—weaponry—will be no more. The psalmist wrote of that time: “Come, you people, behold the activities of Jehovah, how he has set astonishing events on the earth. He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces; the waggons he burns in the fire.” (Psalm 46:8, 9) In view of such a prospect, Isaiah’s following exhortation is as appropriate today as it was when he wrote it: “O men of the house of Jacob, come and let us walk in the light ofJehovah.” (Isaiah 2:5) Yes, let Jehovah’s light illuminate our path now, and we will walk in his way for all eternity.—Micah 4:5.

A non-theist engages in some hard-talk re:the prevailing evolutionary synthesis.

Just enough religion to make us hate.

The end of Christianity in the Middle East could mean the demise of Arab secularism

In a Middle East rebuilt on intolerant ideologies, there is likely to be little place for beleaguered minorities

William Dalrymple

• The Guardian, Wednesday 23 July 2014 16.47 BST

The past decade has been catastrophic for the Arab world'sbeleaguered 12 million strong Christian minority. In Egypt revolution and counter-revolution have been accompanied by a series of anti-Copt riots, killings and church burnings. In Gaza and the West Bank Palestinian Christians are emigrating en masse as they find themselves uncomfortably caught between Netanyahu's pro-settler government and their increasingly radicalised Sunni neighbours.

In Syria most of the violence is along the Sunni-Alawite fault line, but stories of rape and murder directed at the Christian minority, who used to make up around 10% of the population, have emerged. Many have already fled to camps in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan; the ancient Armenian community of Aleppo is reported to be moving en masse to Yerevan.

The worst affected areas of Syria are of course those controlled by Isis. Last weekend it issued a decree offering the dwindling Christian population of eastern Syria and northern Iraq a choice: convert to Islam or pay a special religious levy – the jizya. If they did not comply, "there is nothing to give them but the sword". The passing of the deadline led to possibly the largest exodus of Middle Eastern Christians since theArmenian massacres during the first world war, with the entire Christian community of Mosul heading off towards Kirkuk and the relative religious tolerance of the Kurdish zone.

Even before this latest exodus, at least two-thirds of Iraqi Christians had fled since the fall of Saddam. Christians were concentrated in Mosul, Basra and, especially, Baghdad – which before the US invasion had the largest Christian population in the Middle East. Although Iraq's 750,000 Christians made up only 7% of the pre-war population, they were a prosperous minority under the Ba'athists, as symbolised by the high profile of Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister, who used to disarm visiting foreign dignitaries by breaking into Onward, Christian Soldiers in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

According to tradition it was St Thomas and his cousin Addai who brought Christianity to Iraq in the first century. At the Council of Nicea, where the Christian creed was thrashed out in AD325, there were more bishops from Mesopotamia than western Europe. The region became a refuge for those persecuted by the Orthodox Byzantines, such as theMandeans – the last Gnostics, who follow what they believe to be the teachings of John the Baptist. Then there was the Church of the East, which brought the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, as well as Greek science and medicine, to the Islamic world – and hence, via Cordoba, to the new universities of medieval Europe.

Now almost everywhere Arab Christians are leaving. In the past decade maybe a quarter have made new lives in Europe, Australia and America. According to Professor Kamal Salibi, they are simply exhausted: "There is a feeling of fin de race among Christians all over the Middle East. Now they just want to go somewhere else, make some money and relax. Each time a Christian goes, no other Christian comes to fill his place and that is a very bad thing for the Arab world. It is Christian Arabs who keep the Arab world 'Arab' rather than 'Muslim'."

Certainly since the 19th century Christian Arabs have played a vital role in defining a secular Arab cultural identity. It is no coincidence that most of the founders of secular Arab nationalism were men like Michel Aflaq – the Greek Orthodox Christian from Damascus who, with other Syrian students freshly returned from the Sorbonne, founded the Ba'ath party in the 1940s – or Faris al-Khoury, Syria's only Christian prime minister. Then there were intellectuals like the Palestinian George Antonius, who in 1938 wrote in The Arab Awakening of the crucial role Christians played in reviving Arab literature and the arts after their long slumber under Ottoman rule.

If the Islamic state proclaimed by Isis turns into a permanent, Christian-free zone, it could signal the demise not just of an important part of the Arab Christian realm but also of the secular Arab nationalism Christians helped create. The 20th century after 1918, which saw the creation of the different Arab national states, may well prove to be a blip in Middle Eastern history, as the old primary identifiers of Arab identity, religion and qabila – tribe – resurface.

It is as if, after a century of flirting with imported ideas of the secular nation state, the region is reverting to the Ottoman Millet system (from the Arabic millah, literally "nation"), which represented a view of the world that made religion the ultimate marker of identity, and classified Ottoman subjects by their various sectarian religious "nations".

Despite sizeable Christian populations holding on in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, there is likely to be little place for Christian Arabs in a Middle East rebuilt on intolerant ideologies like those of Isis. Their future is more likely to resemble that of the most influential Christian Arab intellectual of our day, Edward Said. Born in Jerusalem at the height of Arab nationalism in 1935, Said died far from the turmoil of the Middle East in New York in 2003. His last collection of essays was appropriately entitledReflections On Exile.

• The headline of this article was amended on 24 July 2014.

Yet more on the tree of life

Do All Life Forms Fall into a Nested Hierarchy?

 

 

Casey Luskin June 11, 2015 4:57 AM |

 

A biology graduate student and alumnus of our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design recently contacted me to ask where ID comes down on common descent. I explained to him that in the ID camp, some folks accept common descent while others are skeptical. ID proponents can respectfully disagree on that question (and others too), while agreeing on the powerful evidence for design in nature. But my correspondent asked about an argument in favor of common ancestry he had heard that basically went like this:

All life forms fall within a nested hierarchy. Of the hundreds of thousands of specimens that have been tested, every single one falls within a nested hierarchy, or their evolutionary phylogenetic tree is still unknown and not sequenced yet.

This claim (which he wasn't making, by the way) is far from true. We constantly find organisms that don't fit neatly into a phylogenetic tree. Or, what happens is evolutionary biologists attempt to force-fit organisms into the tree only by invoking processes like convergent evolution and loss of traits. In other words, evolutionary biologists are forced to propose that an organism's traits did not arise through common ancestry, because common ancestry fails to explain the data. Does this mean that evolutionary biologists reject common ancestry when they find data that doesn't fit a tree? No, because they assume common ancestry; they aren't interested in testing it. So when they find data that doesn't fit a tree, they just find ways to force-fit the data into the tree. Here's what's going on:
The first and primary assumption of all evolutionary phylogenetic classification methodologies is that common ancestry is true. This assumption nearly always goes unquestioned, even when the data doesn't support it. As Elliott Sober and Michael Steele explain, "It is a central tenet of modern evolutionary theory that all living things now on earth trace back to a single common ancestor," and "This proposition is central because it is presupposed so widely in evolutionary research." They acknowledge that cladistics assumes that a tree exists, and common ancestry is correct:

Whether one uses cladistic parsimony, distance measures, or maximum likelihood methods, the typical question is which tree is the best one, not whether there is a tree in the first place. (Elliott Sober and Michael Steele, "Testing the Hypothesis of Common Ancestry," Journal of Theoretical Biology 218 (2002): 395-408 (emphasis added).)

Likewise, the assumption is made explicit, and primary, in the UC Berkeley Museum of Paleontology's introductory page on cladistics:

What assumptions do cladists make? There are three basic assumptions in cladistics:
1.Any group of organisms are related by descent from a common ancestor.

One textbook cited by Stephen Meyer in Darwin's Doubt concurs about this assumption:

The key assumption made when constructing a phylogenetic tree from a set of sequences is that they are all derived from a single ancestral sequence, i.e., they are homologous. (Marketa Zvelebil and Jeremy O. Baum, Understanding Bioinformatics (New York: Garland Science, 2008), p. 239.)

Together, these authorities make a crucial point: cladistics and other phylogenetics methods do not demonstrate common ancestry; they assume it. In other words, these methods don't test whether all organisms fit into a nested hierarchy (i.e., phylogenetic tree). Rather, evolutionary systematics assumes that common ancestry is true and therefore all organisms belong within a nested hierarchy, and then it uses methods to force-fit any organism into the tree, even if that organisms has traits that don't fit neatly within the tree. Thus, Michael Syvanen -- a rare evolutionary biologist who is open to the possibility that universal common ancestry is false -- laments the pro-tree biases of treebuilding algorithms:

Because tree analysis tools are used so widely, they tend to introduce a bias into the interpretation of results. Hence, one needs to be continually reminded that submitting multiple sequences (DNA, protein, or other character states) to phylogenetic analysis produces trees because that is the nature of the algorithms used. (Michael Syvanen, "Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer," Annual Review of Genetics, 46:339-356 (2012) (emphases added).)

Common ancestry, therefore, is a starting assumption about the data -- not a conclusion from it. Another key lesson is this: just because you see evolutionary biologists creating an impressive-looking phylogenetic tree doesn't mean that all of the organisms or their traits shown within that tree fit neatly into a nested hierarchy (i.e., a tree structure). One could cite many examples of organisms that don't fit cleanly into a tree. Here are a few:Sahelanthropus tchadensis is widely touted as a human ancestor that lived about 6-7 million years ago, sometime very soon after the supposed split between the human line and the chimp line. But it's rarely mentioned that this specimen doesn't fit into the standard hominin tree at all. Why? Because it has a flat face, a humanlike quality, which shouldn't exist that far back:

If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans." (Bernard Wood, "Hominid revelations from Chad," Nature, 418 (July 11, 2002):133-35.)

Because of this, some are skeptical that S. tchadensis belongs on the human line. If that's the case then its flat face represents convergent evolution. And if it is on the human line, then you are forced to propose that later species on the human line lost this trait. Either way, S. tchadensis creates major problems for a nice, neat, nested hierarchy of hominins that is consistent with the chronology of the fossil record. Much further back, there are organisms like Diania, thought to be an early arthropod ancestor from the Cambrian period, but which actually cause huge problems for the arthropod tree:

[W]e should caution that dinocaridids, Diania and other potential stem-arthropods typically express mosaics of arthropod-like characters, which makes resolving a single, simple tree of arthropod origins problematic. Indeed, the position recovered here for Diania between Radiodonta and the ostensibly similar-looking Schinderhannes is surprising. Diania, Schinderhannes and the remaining Arthropoda all share the putative apomorphy of jointed trunk appendages, and yet the trunk limbs of Diania resemble the frontal appendages of Anomalocaris and other radiodontans, which themselves lack trunk limbs entirely. If this is a secondary reduction in fossils like Anomalocaris, then Diania may in fact occupy a more basal position with respect to Radiodonta, Schinderhannes and Arthropoda; a scenario that would be more consistent with their fairly simple body morphology. (Liu et al., "An armoured Cambrian lobopodian from China with arthropod-like appendages," Nature, 470 (February 24, 2011): 526-530 (internal citations omitted).)

The reason the authors talk about "mosaics of arthropod-like characters" is that these organisms don't fit into an orderly, sequential, hierarchical, treelike pattern as predicted by common descent. They present a mishmash of traits, not distributed in a treelike pattern that shows some sequential, hierarchy ordering arthropod traits. This is a famous problem in arthropod evolution, rightly described as a mess. As one paper observes: "Arthropod phylogeny is sometimes presented as an almost hopeless puzzle wherein all possible competing hypotheses have support." That's the opposite of a nested hierarchy.  Nor is it just within the Cambrian phyla that we find such an array of phylogenetic misfits. Among the animal phyla more generally, we see traits that make it difficult to create a treelike representation of relationships.
The argument cited by the grad student noted that one reason an organism's classification isn't understood is that "their evolutionary phylogenetic tree is still unknown and not sequenced yet." That's a bit of a rudimentary argument, but it probably means that until we sequence an organism's genome, we don't know where it belongs in the tree of life. But sometimes after we sequence an organism's genome we find that its place in the tree of life is even less clear than it was before.
This is exactly what happened after the comb jelly genome was sequenced. As I wrote last year, comb jellies (phylum ctenophora) have muscles and complex nervous systems, but molecular studies suggest they branch off very close to the base of the animal tree. However, sponges -- which branch off later according to molecular data -- lack such structures. This means that either complex muscle and nervous cells were lost in sponges (even though these are complex, useful traits you'd probably want to keep around) or muscles and brains evolved convergently in later animals. Either way, you're left with a situation where comb jellies don't fit neatly into the animal tree. They show a mosaic of traits that shouldn't be the case under common descent.
Here's one more classic example from the animal phyla: symmetry. Animals can be divided up in many different ways. Some display bilateral symmetry, basically meaning they have a right half and a left half. Such "bilaterian" phyla include vertebrates, arthropods, and mollusks. Others have radial symmetry, where their symmetry is distributed in an essentially circular fashion around a central axis. Phyla with radial symmetry include cnidarians (e.g., jellyfish), ctenophores (comb jellies), and echinoderms (e.g., star fish and sea urchins).
From an evolutionary perspective, you might expect an animal tree to divide up neatly according to whether organisms display bilateral or radial symmetry. Not so. Echinoderms are placed much closer to vertebrates than they are to cnidarians and other phyla with radial symmetry. In fact, in another weird twist, vertebrates (with bilateral symmetry) are thought to be much closer to echinoderms (with radial symmetry) than they are to other bilaterian phyla like the arthropods, mollusks, or annelids. This grouping is made on the basis of early developmental processes. Echinoderms and vertebrates are both deuterostomes, meaning that early in development the first opening in the blastopore becomes the anus rather than the mouth. The upshot is this: animal symmetry is not distributed in a treelike pattern.
Yes, a critic might object that larval stages of echinoderms can have bilateral symmetry. But exactly the same can be said of some cnidarians, which are very far from echinoderms in the animal tree -- showing, again, that symmetry is not distributed in a treelike pattern.
In any case, an evolutionary biologist could decide to group phyla according to early developmental processes, or according to symmetry, and that's fine. If you weight one trait heavily, you'll get one tree. But switch that weight to another trait and you'll get another, conflicting tree. Either way, when you use one character set to create your tree, then the other character set is no longer distributed in a treelike fashion, and vice versa. That's a major problem.
Another good example of an organism whose genome posed problems for phylogenetic classification after it was sequenced is birds. As we reported last December, the sequencing of various bird genomes led to the unexpected conclusion that many types of birds that were previously thought to be closely related -- water birds, birds of prey, and songbirds -- evolved their groups' defining traits convergently. As Nature put it, "the tree of life for birds has been redrawn" by this study. The problem was, once genomic data was sequenced and understood, many basic habits and lifestyles of birds no longer fit into a nested hierarchy.
Again, there are innumerable examples of organismal traits that don't fit into a treelike pattern. But here are two more that came out recently. 
In April, Science Daily reported a study that looked at how different marine organisms swim ("Convergent evolution: Diverse sea creatures evolved to reach same swimming solution"). The scientists found that organisms as diverse as cuttlefish (a mollusk), the black ghost knifefish (a vertebrate), and the Persian carpet flatworm (phylum platyhelminthes) all use the same method of swimming:

The ability to move one's body rapidly through water is a key to existence for many species on this blue planet of ours. The Persian carpet flatworm, the cuttlefish and the black ghost knifefish look nothing like each other -- their last common ancestor lived 550 million years ago, before the Cambrian period -- but a new study uses a combination of computer simulations, a robotic fish and video footage of real fish to show that all three aquatic creatures have evolved to swim with elongated fins using the same mechanical motion that optimizes their speed, helping to ensure their survival.These three animals are part of a very diverse group of aquatic animals -- both vertebrate and invertebrate -- that independently arrived at the same solution of how to use their fins to maximize speed. And, remarkably, this so-called "convergent" evolution happened at least eight times across three different phyla, or animal groups, supporting the belief that necessity played a larger role than chance in developing this trait.

Now they are welcome to invoke convergent evolution if they like, but it's striking how each of these widely diverse organisms has a very similar mode of swimming, where the length of one undulation of the animal's fins divided by the average amplitude of the corresponding sideways movement gives you a ratio of about 20. You can see how distantly related (according to the usual evolutionary paradigm) these similar-swimming organisms are by looking at a tree diagram from the original paper. Also in April there were striking reports of a new vegetarian theropod dinosaur that had traits that made it very difficult to classify within the standard dinosaur tree:

Although closely related to the notorious carnivore Tyrannosaurus rex, a new lineage of dinosaur discovered in Chile is proving to be an evolutionary jigsaw puzzle, as it preferred to graze upon plants. Chilesaurus boasted a proportionally small skull, hands with two fingers like Tyrannosaurus rex and feet more akin to primitive long-neck dinosaurs.

Theropods, of course, include the meat eaters Velociraptor and T. rex, yet this species was a vegetarian. It thus poses a severe puzzle for evolutionary classification, as an article in The Guardian acknowledged:

Fossil hunters in Chile have unearthed the remains of a bizarre Jurassic dinosaur that combined a curious mixture of features from different prehistoric animals. The evolutionary muddle of a beast grew to the size of a small horse and was the most abundant animal to be found 145 million years ago, in what is now the Aysén region of Patagonia.

The discovery ranks as one of the most remarkable dinosaur finds of the past 20 years, and promises to cause plenty of headaches for paleontologists hoping to place the animal in the dinosaur family tree.

"I don't know how the evolution of dinosaurs produced this kind of animal, what kind of ecological pressures must have been at work," said Fernando Novas at the Bernardino Rivadavia Natural Sciences Museum in Buenos Aires.

The technical paper in Nature puts it this way:

For a basal tetanuran, Chilesaurus possesses a number of surprisingly plesiomorphic traits on the hindlimbs, especially in the ankle and foot, which resemble basal sauropodomorphs. These features are here considered as secondary reversals that might be related to a less-cursorial mode of locomotion. Furthermore, derived features of the dentary and teeth shared by Chilesaurus, sauropodomorphs and therizinosaurs are interpreted as homoplasies related to herbivorous habits. ... Chilesaurus represents an extreme case of mosaic evolution among dinosaurs, owing to the presence of dental, cranial and postcranial features that are homoplastic with multiple disparate groups. Using quantitative morphospace analysis, we explored morphospace occupation of different skeletal regions in Chilesaurus with respect to a variety of avian and non-avian theropods. This shows that Chilesaurus has a ceratosaur-like axial skeleton, a 'basal tetanuran' forelimb and scapular girdle, a coelurosaur-like pelvis, and a tetanuran-like hindlimb. General ankle and foot construction does not group with any theropod clade, probably as a result of the characters shared by Chilesaurus, sauropodomorphs and herrerasaurids.

Science Daily explained in less technical terms why this species, with its set of traits resembling many different types of dinosaurs, is difficult to classify:

Other features present in very different groups of dinosaurs Chilesaurus adopted were robust forelimbs similar to Jurassic theropods such as Allosaurus, although its hands were provided with two blunt fingers, unlike the sharp claws of fellow theropod Velociraptor. Chilesaurus' pelvic girdle resembles that of the ornithischian dinosaurs, whereas it is actually classified in the other basic dinosaur division -- Saurischia. The different parts of the body of Chilesaurus were adapted to a particular diet and way of life, which was similar to other groups of dinosaurs. As a result of these similar habits, different regions of the body of Chilesaurus evolved resembling those present in other, unrelated groups of dinosaurs, which is a phenomenon called evolutionary convergence.
Chilesaurus represents one of the most extreme cases of mosaic convergent evolution recorded in the history of life. For example, the teeth of Chilesaurus are very similar to those of primitive long-neck dinosaurs because they were selected over millions of years as a result of a similar diet between these two lineages of dinosaurs.
Martín Ezcurra, Researcher, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham said: 'Chilesaurus can be considered a 'platypus' dinosaur because different parts of its body resemble those of other dinosaur groups due to mosaic convergent evolution. In this process, a region or regions of an organism resemble others of unrelated species because of a similar mode of life and evolutionary pressures. Chilesaurus provides a good example of how evolution works in deep time and it is one of the most interesting cases of convergent evolution documented in the history of life.

What we see here is a dino that doesn't fit with the dino tree not just because it's a herbivorous theropod, but also because different parts of its body appear similar to different types of dinosaurs. Through convergent evolution and loss of traits, you can always find a way accommodate such quirky data. However the bottom line is that organisms like these are the opposite of finding "All life forms fall within nested hierarchy." We explain further in our curriculum Discovering Intelligent Design:

You may recall the "main assumption," mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, that Darwinian evolutionists use when constructing trees: similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor. But what about situations where that assumption is clearly untrue -- i.e., when two organisms share a trait that their supposed common ancestor could not have possessed? A striking example is the [skull] similarity between marsupial and placental "saber-toothed cats," which are classified as very different types of mammals due to their two distinctly different ways of bearing young.
According to current evolutionary theory, the common ancestor of these two cats was a small rodent-like mammal with a very different body plan. Thus, their highly similar skull structures had to develop independently and could not have been inherited from a common ancestor.
Common descent does not explain these similarities. Evolutionists try  to explain this evidence by claiming these distinctly different cats evolved the same traits independently through convergent evolution.

Does this sort of data absolutely refute universal common descent? Taken on a case-by-case basis, no of course not, and we're not claiming it does. What it shows, collectively, is that the evolutionary case is a lot weaker than is routinely claimed. We commonly -- if not constantly -- find organisms whose traits don't fit into a hierarchical tree.
I like how we conclude on this topic in Discovering Intelligent Design:

Perhaps the main assumption of phylogenetic trees should be rewritten as: "similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor, except when it does not." Rather than being a helpful solution for neo-Darwinists, convergent evolution undermines the reasoning used to construct phylogenetic trees.

In fact, maintaining that "All life forms fall within a nested hierarchy" requires you to ignore huge amounts of data. ID proponents who doubt common descent have, I would say, ample reason for doing so.

 

On reasons to doubt the trinity

On reasons to doubt the trinity II

The Bible's standard re:marriage:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

MARRIAGE:
The union of a man and a woman as husband and wife according to the standard set out by God. Marriage is a divine institution, authorized and established by Jehovah in Eden. Marriage brings into being the family unit, the family circle. Its basic purpose was the reproducing of the members of the human family, to bring into existence more creatures of the human kind. Jehovah the Creator made male and female and ordained marriage as the proper arrangement for the multiplication of the human race. (Ge 1:27, 28) The first human wedding was performed by Jehovah, as described at Genesis 2:22-24.

Marriage was designed to form a permanent bond of union between man and woman, that they might be mutually helpful to each other. Living together in love and confidence, they could enjoy great happiness. Jehovah created woman as a mate for man by using the man’s rib as a base, thereby making woman man’s closest fleshly relative on earth, his own flesh. (Ge 2:21) As Jesus pointed out, it was not Adam but God who said, “That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” The wording of this text makes it evident that monogamy was the original standard for marriage in the eyes of Jehovah God.—Mt 19:4-6; Ge 2:24.

Marriage was the normal way of life among the Hebrews. There is no word for bachelor in the Hebrew Scriptures. The basic purpose of marriage being to have children, the statement of blessing by Rebekah’s family is understandable: “May you become thousands times ten thousand” (Ge 24:60), also Rachel’s appeal to Jacob: “Give me children or otherwise I shall be a dead woman.”—Ge 30:1.

Marriage was a matter affecting the family, and not only the family but the entire tribe or patriarchal community, for it could have an effect on the strength of the tribe as well as its economy. It was natural and seemed necessary, therefore, that the selection of a wife and the arrangement of all contractual and financial matters connected with it should be decided upon by the parents or guardians involved, though the consent of the parties was sometimes sought (Ge 24:8) and romantic attachments often accompanied the arrangements. (Ge 29:20; 1Sa 18:20, 27, 28) The initial steps or proposals were generally made by the parents of the young man, but sometimes by the father of the girl, especially if there was a difference of rank.—Jos 15:16, 17; 1Sa 18:20-27.

It seems to have been generally customary for a man to look for a wife within the circle of his own relations or tribe. This principle is indicated by Laban’s statement to Jacob: “It is better for me to give [my daughter] to you than for me to give her to another man.” (Ge 29:19) Especially was this observed among the worshipers of Jehovah, as exemplified by Abraham when he sent to his relatives in his own country to get a wife for his son Isaac rather than to take one from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom he was dwelling. (Ge 24:3, 4) Marriage to nonworshipers of Jehovah was frowned upon and strongly discouraged. It was a form of disloyalty. (Ge 26:34, 35) Under the Law, marriage alliances with persons of the seven Canaanite nations were prohibited. (De 7:1-4) However, a soldier might marry a captive virgin from another foreign nation after she had undergone a purification period, during which she mourned her dead parents and got rid of all features of her past religious connections.—De 21:10-14.

Bride-Price. Before the marriage contract was concluded, the young man or the father of the young man had to pay to the girl’s father the bride-price, or marriage price. (Ge 34:11, 12; Ex 22:16; 1Sa 18:23, 25) This was doubtless regarded as compensation for the loss of the services of the daughter and for the effort and expense required of the parents in caring for and educating her. Sometimes the bride-price was paid in services to the father. (Ge 29:18, 20, 27; 31:15) In the Law there was an established purchase price for an unengaged virgin who was seduced by a man.—Ex 22:16.

Ceremony. As to the wedding itself, the central and characteristic feature was the solemn bringing of the bride from her father’s home to her husband’s home on the date agreed upon, in which act the significance of marriage as representing admission of the bride into the family of her husband found expression. (Mt 1:24) This constituted the wedding in patriarchal days before the Law. It was altogether a civil affair. There was no religious ceremony or form, and no priest or clergyman officiated or validated the marriage. The bridegroom took the bride to his house or to the tent or house of his parents. The matter was publicly made known, acknowledged, and recorded, and the marriage was binding.—Ge 24:67.

However, as soon as marriage arrangements had been made and the parties were engaged, they were considered bound in marriage. Lot’s daughters were still in his house, under his jurisdiction, but the men engaged to them were termed Lot’s “sons-in-law who were to take his daughters.” (Ge 19:14) Although Samson never married a certain Philistine woman but was only engaged to her, she was spoken of as his wife. (Jg 14:10, 17, 20) The Law stated that if an engaged girl committed fornication, she and the guilty man were to be put to death. If she was violated against her will, the man was to be put to death. However, any case involving an unengaged girl was handled differently.—De 22:22-27.

Marriages were registered. Under the Law marriages, as well as births resulting from the union, were recorded in the official records of the community. For this reason we have an accurate genealogy of Jesus Christ.—Mt 1:1-16; Lu 3:23-38; compare Lu 2:1-5.

Celebration. While the wedding itself had no formal ceremony, there was, nevertheless, a very joyous celebration of weddings in Israel. On the day of the wedding, at her own home the bride usually made elaborate preparations. First she would bathe herself and rub herself with perfumed oil. (Compare Ru 3:3; Eze 23:40.) At times assisted by woman attendants, she put on breastbands and a white robe, often richly embroidered, according to her financial status. (Jer 2:32; Re 19:7, 8; Ps 45:13, 14) She decked herself with ornaments and jewels, if she was able to do so (Isa 49:18; 61:10; Re 21:2), and then covered herself with a light garment, a form of veil, that extended from head to foot. (Isa 3:19, 23) This explains why Laban could so easily practice a deception on Jacob so that Jacob did not know that Laban was giving him Leah instead of Rachel. (Ge 29:23, 25) Rebekah put on a head covering when she approached to meet Isaac. (Ge 24:65) This symbolized the subjection of the bride to the bridegroom—to his authority.—1Co 11:5, 10.

The bridegroom was likewise arrayed in his best attire and often had a handsome headdress and a garland on his head. (Ca 3:11; Isa 61:10) Escorted by his friends, he would leave his house in the evening for the home of the bride’s parents. (Mt 9:15) From there the procession, accompanied by musicians and singers and usually by persons bearing lamps, moved toward the home of the bridegroom or to the house of his father.

The people along the route would take great interest in the procession. The voices of the bride and bridegroom would be heard in exultation. Some, particularly maidens bearing lamps, would join the procession. (Jer 7:34; 16:9; Isa 62:5; Mt 25:1) The bridegroom might spend considerable time at his home and, then again, some delay might take place before the procession would leave the home of the bride, so that it would thus be quite late, and some who were waiting along the way might get drowsy and fall asleep, as in Jesus’ illustration of the ten virgins. The singing and exultation might be heard quite a distance ahead, those hearing it making the cry: “Here is the bridegroom!” The attendants were ready to greet the bridegroom when he came, and those invited to the marriage supper would enter the house. After the bridegroom and his entourage had gone into the house and closed the door, it was too late for tardy guests to enter. (Mt 25:1-12; 22:1-3; Ge 29:22) It was looked upon as a gross insult to decline the invitation to the marriage feast. (Mt 22:8) The guests might be provided with robes (Mt 22:11), and their respective places at the feast were often designated by the one extending the invitation.—Lu 14:8-10.

Friend of the Bridegroom. “The friend of the bridegroom” had a large share in the arrangements and was looked upon as bringing together the bride and groom. The friend of the bridegroom rejoiced in hearing the voice of the groom conversing with the bride and now could feel happy that his duties had been blessed with a successful conclusion.—Joh 3:29.

Proof of Virginity. After the supper the husband took his bride into the nuptial chamber. (Ps 19:5; Joe 2:16) On the wedding night a cloth or garment was used and then kept or given to the wife’s parents so that the marks of the blood of the girl’s virginity would constitute legal protection for her in the event she was later charged with lack of virginity or of having been a prostitute prior to her marriage. Otherwise, she could be stoned to death for having presented herself in marriage as a spotless virgin and for bringing great reproach on her father’s house. (De 22:13-21) This practice of keeping the cloth has continued among some peoples in the Middle East until recent times.

Privileges and Duties. The husband was head of the house, and the final decision on matters affecting the welfare and economy of the family were left to him. If he felt that the family would be adversely affected, he could even annul a vow of his wife or daughter. This authority evidently also belonged to the man when he was engaged to a woman. (Nu 30:3-8, 10-15) The husband was the lord, master of the household, and was considered the owner (Heb., baʹʽal) of the woman.—De 22:22.

Proverbs 31 describes some of the duties of the wife toward her husband, or owner, which included the household work, the making of and care for clothing, even some of the buying and selling, and general supervision of the household. The woman, while being in subjection and being in a sense the property of the husband, enjoyed a fine status and many privileges. Her husband was to love her, and this was true even if she was a secondary wife or one who had been taken as a captive. She was not to be mistreated and was guaranteed food, clothing, shelter, and the marriage due without diminution. Also, the husband could not constitute the son of the favorite wife as the firstborn at the expense of the son of the “hated” (or less preferred) wife. (Ex 21:7-11; De 21:11, 14-17) Faithful Hebrew men loved their wives, and if the wife was wise and acted in harmony with God’s law, often the husband would listen to her or approve of her actions.—Ge 21:8-14; 27:41-46; 28:1-4.

Even the unengaged virgin who was seduced by an unmarried man was protected, for if the father permitted, the seducer had to marry the girl and could never divorce her all his life. (De 22:28, 29) If the wife was formally accused by her husband of not being a virgin at the time of marriage and the charge was proved false, her husband was fined and could never divorce her. (De 22:17-19) The woman who was accused of secret adultery, if innocent, was then to be made pregnant by her husband so that she could bear a child and thereby give public notice of her innocence. The dignity of the wife’s person was respected. Intercourse with her during menstruation was forbidden.—Le 18:19; Nu 5:12-28.

Prohibited Marriages. Besides prohibition of marriage alliances with nonworshipers of Jehovah, especially with the seven nations in the land of Canaan (Ex 34:14-16; De 7:1-4), other marriages were prohibited within certain degrees of consanguinity or affinity.—Le 18:6-17.

A high priest was prohibited from marrying a widow, a divorced or violated woman, or a prostitute; he was to marry only a virgin from his people. (Le 21:10, 13, 14) The other priests could not marry a prostitute or violated woman, nor a woman divorced from her husband. (Le 21:1, 7) According to Ezekiel 44:22, they could marry a virgin of the house of Israel or a widow who happened to be the widow of a priest.

If a daughter inherited property, she was not to marry out of her tribe. This prevented the hereditary possession from circulating from tribe to tribe.—Nu 36:8, 9.

Divorce. At the institution of marriage by the Creator, he made no provision for divorce. A man was to stick to his wife, and “they must become one flesh.” (Ge 2:24) A man would therefore have one wife who was considered one flesh with him. It was only after man’s fall and consequent imperfections and degradation that divorce entered in.

In giving the Law to Israel, God did not at that time choose to enforce the original standard, but he regulated divorce so that it would not bring dissolution of the family arrangement in Israel or work undue hardship. However, at God’s due time his original standard was restored. Jesus stated the principle governing the Christian congregation—that “fornication” (Gr., por·neiʹa) is the only valid ground for divorce. He explained that God did not enforce this standard through Moses out of regard for the hardheartedness of the Israelites.—Mt 19:3-9; Mr 10:1-11.

In the Christian congregation, therefore, aside from death, which automatically breaks the marriage tie, the only other way it may be broken is on the ground of “fornication,” which causes the offending one to become one flesh with an illicit partner. It therefore may be used by the innocent party as a ground for dissolving the marriage if that one chooses to do so, and the innocent one may then remarry. (Mt 5:32; Ro 7:2, 3) Aside from making this allowance in case of “fornication” (Gr., por·neiʹa), the Greek Scriptures counsel Christians not even to separate from their mates, whether believers or unbelievers, and require that if they do, they have no sex relations with anyone else.—1Co 7:10, 11; Mt 19:9.

Under the Law a husband could divorce his wife for something ‘indecent’ on her part. This, of course, would not include adultery, for it carried a death penalty. It might be such offenses as great disrespect for the husband or for the house of his father, or something bringing reproach upon his household. The husband was required to provide her with a written certificate of divorce, which implies that in the eyes of the community he had to have sufficient grounds on which to divorce her. The certificate being a legal document, there is the implication that it involved consultation with the older men or authorities of his city. The woman could then remarry, the certificate protecting her from any later charge of adultery. No divorce was allowed a man if he had seduced the girl before marriage or if he had falsely charged after marriage that she was deceptive in claiming to be a virgin at the time of their marriage.—De 22:13-19, 28, 29.

After a divorce if a woman married another man and this man later divorced her or died, the original husband could not marry her again. This worked to prevent any scheme to bring about a divorce from the second husband or perhaps even his death so the original couple might remarry.—De 24:1-4.

Jehovah hated an unjust divorce, especially where a faithful worshiper of his was treacherously dealt with in order to arrange for another marriage to a pagan woman who was not a member of his chosen covenant people.—Mal 2:14-16; see DIVORCE.

Polygamy. Since God’s original standard for mankind was for the husband and wife to become one flesh, polygamy was not intended, and it is prohibited in the Christian congregation. Overseers and ministerial servants, who are to set the example for the congregation, are to be men having not more than one living wife. (1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6) This is in harmony with what true marriage is used to picture, namely, the relationship of Jesus Christ and his congregation, the only wife possessed by Jesus.—Eph 5:21-33.

As was the case with divorce, polygamy, while not God’s original arrangement, was tolerated until the time of the Christian congregation. Polygamy had a start not long after Adam’s deflection. The first Bible mention of it is concerning a descendant of Cain, Lamech, of whom it says: “[He] proceeded to take two wives for himself.” (Ge 4:19) Concerning some of the angels, the Bible mentions that before the Flood, “the sons of the true God . . . went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.”—Ge 6:2.

Concubinage was practiced under patriarchal law and under the Law covenant. A concubine had a legal status; her position was not a matter of fornication or adultery. Under the Law, if a man’s firstborn son was the son of his concubine, this son would be the one to receive the firstborn’s inheritance.—De 21:15-17.

Concubinage and polygamy no doubt enabled the Israelites to increase at a much faster rate, and therefore, while God did not establish these arrangements but only allowed and regulated them, they served some purpose at the time. (Ex 1:7) Even Jacob, who was tricked into polygamy by his father-in-law, was blessed by having 12 sons and some daughters from his two wives and their handmaidens who became concubines to Jacob.—Ge 29:23-29; 46:7-25.

Christian Marriage. Jesus Christ showed his approval of marriage when he attended the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. (Joh 2:1, 2) As already stated, monogamy is God’s original standard, reestablished by Jesus Christ in the Christian congregation. (Ge 2:24; Mt 19:4-8; Mr 10:2-9) Since man and woman were originally endowed with the ability to express love and affection, the arrangement was to be a happy, blessed, and peaceful one. The apostle Paul uses the illustration of Christ as husband and head of the congregation, his bride. It is a prime example of the tender loving-kindness and care that the husband should have for his wife, loving her as his own body. He also points out that, on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband. (Eph 5:21-33) The apostle Peter counsels wives to be in subjection to their husbands, appealing to them through chaste conduct, deep respect, and a quiet and mild spirit. He uses Sarah, who called her husband Abraham “lord,” as an example to imitate.—1Pe 3:1-6.

Cleanness and loyalty in the marriage bond are emphasized throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures. Paul says: “Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Heb 13:4) He counsels mutual respect between husband and wife and the payment of the marriage due.

‘Marry in the Lord’ is the apostle’s admonition, which is in harmony with the practice of ancient worshipers of God in marrying only those who were likewise true worshipers. (1Co 7:39) However, the apostle gives counsel to those who are not married that they may be able to serve the Lord without distraction if they remain single. He says that, in view of the time, those who get married should live ‘as though they had no wives,’ in other words, that they should not devote themselves to the marital privileges and responsibilities to the extent of making this their whole life but should seek and serve Kingdom interests, while not excluding their marriage responsibilities.—1Co 7:29-38.

Paul counseled that just because younger widows expressed the intent to devote themselves exclusively to Christian ministerial activities, they were not to be put on the list of those to be cared for by the congregation; it was better for them to remarry. This is because, he says, their sexual impulses may induce them to go contrary to their expression of faith that might lead to their accepting the congregation’s financial support as hard workers, while at the same time trying to get a husband as well as becoming unoccupied and meddlers. They would thereby bring themselves under an unfavorable judgment. To marry, bear children, and manage a household, while still maintaining the Christian faith, would effectively occupy them, protecting them against gossiping and talking of things they ought not. This would enable the congregation to help those who were actually widows and who qualified for such aid.—1Ti 5:9-16; 2:15.

Celibacy. The apostle Paul warns that one of the identifying features of the apostasy that was to come would be enforced celibacy, “forbidding to marry.” (1Ti 4:1, 3) Some of the apostles were married. (1Co 9:5; Lu 4:38) Paul, in setting forth the qualifications for overseers and ministerial servants in the Christian congregation, says that these men (if married) should have only one wife.—1Ti 3:1, 2, 12; Tit 1:5, 6.

Christians and Civil Marriage Laws. At the present time, in most lands of the earth, marriage is governed by laws of the civil authorities, “Caesar,” and the Christian should normally comply with these. (Mt 22:21) The Bible record nowhere sets out the requirement of a religious ceremony or the services of a clergyman. According to the arrangement in Bible times, the requirement would consistently be that a marriage be legalized according to the laws of the land and that marriages and births be registered where such a provision is made by law. Since the “Caesar” governments exercise such control of marriage, the Christian would be obliged to apply to them for the legalizing of a marriage. And even if he should desire to use the adultery of his mate as a Scriptural ground for terminating the marriage, he must obtain a legal divorce if this is possible. A Christian who remarries without due respect for Scriptural and legal requirements, therefore, would be violating God’s laws.—Mt 19:9; Ro 13:1.

Marriage and the Resurrection. A group of Jesus’ opponents who did not believe in the resurrection asked Jesus a question that was calculated to embarrass him. In answering them, he revealed that “those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.”—Lu 20:34, 35; Mt 22:30.

Symbolic Uses. Throughout the Scriptures, Jehovah speaks of himself as a husband. He considered himself as married to the nation of Israel. (Isa 54:1, 5, 6; 62:4) When Israel rebelled against Jehovah by practicing idolatry or some other form of sin against him, this was spoken of as committing prostitution like an unfaithful wife, providing cause for his divorcing her.—Isa 1:21; Jer 3:1-20; Ho 2.

In Galatians chapter 4 the apostle Paul likens the nation of Israel to the slave girl Hagar, the concubine of Abraham, and the Jewish people to Hagar’s son Ishmael. Just as Ishmael was the son of the secondary wife of Abraham, so the Jews were the children of the secondary “wife” of Jehovah. The tie binding Israel to Jehovah was the Law covenant. Paul likens “Jerusalem above,” Jehovah’s “woman,” to Sarah, Abraham’s free wife. Of this free woman “Jerusalem above,” Christians are the free spiritual children.—Ga 4:21-31; compare Isa 54:1-6.

As the great Father, Jehovah God, like Abraham, oversees the selection of a bride for his son Jesus Christ—not an earthly woman, but the Christian congregation. (Ge 24:1-4; 2Th 2:13; 1Pe 2:5) The first members of Jesus’ congregation were presented to him by “the friend of the bridegroom,” John the Baptizer, whom Jehovah had sent ahead of his Son. (Joh 3:28, 29) This congregational bride is “one spirit” with Christ, as his body. (1Co 6:17; Eph 1:22, 23; 5:22, 23) Just as the bride in Israel bathed and adorned herself, Jesus Christ sees that in preparation for marriage his bride is bathed so that she is perfectly clean without a spot or blemish. (Eph 5:25-27) In Psalm 45 and Revelation 21 she is shown as being beautifully adorned for the marriage.

Also in the book of Revelation, Jehovah foretells the time when his Son’s marriage would draw near and the bride would be prepared, arrayed in bright, clean, fine linen. He describes those invited to the evening meal of the Lamb’s marriage as being happy. (Re 19:7-9; 21:2, 9-21) On the night before his death, Jesus instituted the Lord’s Evening Meal, the Memorial of his death, and instructed his disciples to keep observing it. (Lu 22:19) This observance is to be kept “until he arrives.” (1Co 11:26) Just as in ancient times the bridegroom arrived at the house of the bride in order to take her from her own parents to the home he had provided for her in the house of his father, so Jesus Christ comes to take his anointed followers from their former earthly home, taking them with him so that where he is they may be also, in his Father’s house, in heaven.—Joh 14:1-3.

Evolution science reformation defanged?

With More Information About the Royal Society Meeting, Let's Not Boost Expectations Too High
Evolution News & Views 

Cool. The abstracts for the anticipated upcoming meeting of the Royal Society in London, "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives," are now available.

The descriptions don't give a sense of what kind of fireworks to expect, if any. Of course, they're purposely written in anodyne prose -- no bomb-throwing. Like this from Gerd Müller, associated (like others organizers) with the Third Way of Evolution, who has spoken about "replac[ing] the Modern [Evolutionary] Synthesis, not merely improv[ing] it." His talk is titled, "The extended evolutionary synthesis":

Since the last major conceptual integration in evolutionary biology - the Modern Synthesis of the 1940s -- the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and of multiple inheritance systems, the -omics revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge regarding the mechanisms of evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the classical Synthetic Theory and others reveal different properties of evolutionary change. A renewed and extended evolutionary synthesis unites pertinent concepts emerging from these novel fields with elements from the standard theory, but it differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the classical theory had concentrated on genes and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasises the role of constructive processes, environmental induction, and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity. Single level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, this entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. The extended evolutionary synthesis complements the traditional gene centric perspective and stimulates research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

We don't want to raise anyone's expectations too high.

Here's a metaphor that may help in clarifying what's happening. Imagine a city surrounded by a high wall. Some precincts within the city are very well mapped and tended. Others, however, have been neglected for decades, or simply allowed to go to ruins. Of late, an intrepid group of builders has moved into the neglected districts, and begun to fix them up. This creates a stir within the city: it's being "extended," and in some ways, improved.

But the high wall is always there, as an absolute barrier to free movement or development. The Royal Society meeting will explore what can be done within the walls of naturalism or materialism, to fix evolutionary theory (meaning theories about the origin and diversification of living things by natural processes). Yet if one reads through the abstracts, long-unsolved problems, such as the origin of life itself (which, pace evolutionary biologists, most definitely is a part of the evolutionary picture), the origin of complex systems, animals, etc. -- all those stand untouched.

Because there is only so much one can do within the walls of naturalism. If life is not the product of undirected physical processes, then one simply will not be able to solve that problem, no matter where one goes within the city. You have to open the gates and see what may be waiting outside, as we do here at Evolution News.


Many of the new evolutionary ideas, mechanisms, and lines of evidence are fascinating and worthwhile in their own right, but the main problems of evolution are unsolved -- because those problems only arise on the assumption that materialism/naturalism is true.

A clash of titans XXXI

File under "Well said" XXXVII

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. Mark Twain