Do fathers "own" their daughters?

[Anonymous]

David, my assumption is that it was indeed not SIN until the law stated it to be sin for siblings to marry or bond sexually. Therefore, the burden of proof rests upon the ones who say it was sin but then say God "allowed a necessary evil" which is taking the lesser of two evil ethical positions, which would in essence make God out to be responsible for the sin itself by approved it and then making it to where there was no other option but to act on the lesser of two evils. That ethical position is less than desireable.

I agree that this ethical position would be less than desirable, to say the least. However, claiming marriage between siblings was once righteous and THEN BECAME SINFUL would mean that God redefined marriage. Is that REALLY the position we want to be taking here? Is there another alternative, one that is consistent and aligns with the whole of Scripture?

You said that your assumption is that sibling marriage was not sin until the law, and you state this assumption because you reason that there is no possible way for the human race to have come about with only one man and one woman without sibling marriage. It is THIS human reasoning, that sibling marriage MUST have occurred, that is the basis for your faulty (in my opinion) assumption. Suppose Scripture allowed for a third possibility, where all sexual prohibitions were still understood from the outset in the garden, where God was not forced to redefine marriage, and where no sexual sin was needed for the human race to reproduce as instructed ("Be fruitful and MULTIPLY")? Which position would properly align with the righteous character of God?

I do agree with you that the burden of proof rests upon the ones who say sibling marriage was sin but then say God allowed a necessary evil. I also believe that the burden of proof rests upon the ones who say that sibling marriage was not initially sin but then later BECAME sin at Sinai. Neither position can be substantiated from Scripture because neither one reflects the eternal righteous character of God at all. To be clear, I wasn't taking either of these positions. I'm saying that sibling marriage (along with sodomy, beastiality, adultery, etc.) was sin from the beginning. These sinful behaviors did not suddenly become sinful only after Sinai, and then only for the people of Israel. God certainly would have communicated to Adam what was an allowed (righteous) sexual union and what was a forbidden (sinful) sexual union in advance of sending them from the garden.

At the same time, no sibling marriage was required to propagate the human race from one man and one woman. This type of thinking is a throwback to old monogynous ideology, which we already know to be false. There IS a Scriptural alternative that is fully consistent with His whole Word and doesn't make sexual prohibitions fluctuate from different periods and for different peoples.

If God who is omniscient knew when he created only two people that this would make it an absolute for for the siblings to marry yet that was for sure going to be a sin then God would have been the responsible agent for enticing them into the sin by making only two parents and no other way around this.

Agreed. Therefore, when He created two people, He knew that it was NOT an absolute necessity for the siblings to marry. In truth, no violation of God's revealed sexual prohibitions was required to propagate the species.

Your position that sibling marriage was once righteous and later became sinful at Sinai demands Scriptural support, because it has God redefining marriage for the Israelites (but apparently not for the gentiles). To whom was the Mosaic law given? To whom does it still apply to today? Did it apply to gentiles at the time of Moses? Did it apply to gentiles at the time of Jesus? Does it apply to anyone today?

If sibling marriage was righteous for all mankind, and only became sinful for national Israel, then there is no Scriptural prohibition against sibling marriage today (unless you are claiming the sexual prohibitions given in Lev. 18 somehow applies to everyone today on its own basis). If sibling marriage is sinful for all mankind, then we must conclude it was revealed EXTERNAL to the Mosaic Law, since we know that Mosaic Law was only given to national Israel. The New Testament is full of passages denouncing the same sexual sins recorded in Lev. 18. Are you saying they ARE or they ARE NOT applicable to us today? Based on which passages?

I'm not trying to make anyone uncomfortable or agitated, but we've overlooked the most obvious answer, and it's staring us in the face right there in Lev. 18. There is no conflict. We simply acknowledge sexual sin has always been sexual sin, irrespective of the fact it was also part of the Mosaic Law.

My position remains that all sexual sin was made known to Adam, and again to Noah, and there was no need whatsoever for anyone to violate any of God's sexual prohibitions in order to propagate the human race (whether we grasp how that was possible or not). Those prohibitions were later codified in written form for the children of Israel, but just as with murder, theft, and all other natural laws of God, they were already sin to ALL mankind prior to being recorded in the book of Leviticus.

In His love,
David

 

[Anonymous]

It could be a niece, but that still requires cain, or one of seth's younger brothers to diddle his sister in order to manufacture a niece for seth.

But that only moves the sin to another brother. In truth, there is no need to violate Lev. 18 to solve this problem. The answer is right there in Scripture. There is another way for Seth to have a niece WITHOUT requiring ANY sibling relations and it would have been OBVIOUS to them (even if it's hard for us to wrap our heads around).

In His love,
David

 

[chrismc]

It could be a niece, but that still requires cain, or one of seth's younger brothers to diddle his sister in order to manufacture a niece for seth.

But that only moves the sin to another brother. In truth, there is no need to violate Lev. 18 to solve this problem. The answer is right there in Scripture. There is another way for Seth to have a niece WITHOUT requiring ANY sibling relations and it would have been OBVIOUS to them (even if it's hard for us to wrap our heads around).

In His love,
David

ok my head doesnt wrap very good lol what is the other way?

 

[Anonymous]

God's law is more than physical connections; it is more about heart and mind connection than simple DNA connection. A elder in a church may be more a father to a daughter than a physical father. A mother may be more of a leader, or a brother may be more of a leader, or whomever that woman is under may be more of a head than the actual DNA father who is sometimes nothing more than just a sperm donor.

Again, it goes back to the issues in the NT. Many women had no true father after converting to Christ, or at least not in the sense of what the term father meant. But if they followed Christ's teaching these ladies still had a family and others could step in and be in that role over the woman, like elders, brothers in the Lord, another lady, etc until that woman came under another head such as a husband.

It sounds like to me you are saying that so long as the DNA father is alive that no matter what that DNA father has the authority or headship over that daughter? Is that what you are trying to say? If not maybe I'm missing something.

If so the Bible presents more to the story than simple DNA fatherhood proves absolute rights or ownership over a daughter. In normal cases where the delegated rule of God through the earthly father is being carried within reason and with no clear contradiction against the Bible then that would stand. But to say it is absolute, always, with no other boundaries or options is to reject many other portions of Scripture by trying to elevate physical bonds above the heart and spirit of the Bible. Many fathers don't care to rule with any sense of truth. Some want to abuse their daughters, some have abused their daughters, some try and make their rule above Christ's rule. etc. etc. In those cases where a father is not present, or is not involved, or is doing evil with his involvement the Bible presents others options that are holy and righteous for women in such cases. to say less is to do the same thing that the Pharisees did with the law, to focus on one piece and miss other pieces and to focus on the lesser matters instead of the weighter matters. In short sometimes people "strain at gnats and swallow camels" (Matt. 23:23).

The goal is right to preserve fatherly rule. But to stretch that to such ends that it is absolute and without checks or without other options with exceptions would be a violation of th laws of love in the Bible.

Thank you for this, Dr. Allen !
Speaking as a woman with an ungodly and absent father, I get frustrated with people who try to apply the same solutions with everyone, regardless of the circumstances. You can't always reduce complex relationships into a nice, neat formula.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[welltan]

I started a reply but what I wrote is probably a whole new thread or topic


viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1921&p=18611#p18611

 

[Anonymous]

ok my head doesnt wrap very good lol what is the other way?

If you're really interested, I can explain in more detail by e-mail (webmaster@righteouswarriors.com), but I believe the moderators of this forum would prefer to keep certain "taboo" subjects off the public forums, for obvious reasons. Even if I was certain the message would be allowed to stand, it's likely that it would be shouted down by the masses, long before anything could be shown in Scripture. Not everyone can handle the truth, even when they think they can. We can all get quite worked up when someone presents new information that runs counter to what we've always believed must be true. Imagine the reaction to a point blank statement like "A man can take multiple wives according to God's Word" being posted on a feministic, monogyny-only Christian forum. Not pretty.

Instead, this is what I would suggest. Take a notepad and pen and draw up a list or a map of ALL potential family relationships for any given man. Draw lines from the man to all females originating both before and after the man (ie. mother, grandmother on father's side, aunt on mother's side, half-sister on father's side, granddaughter on son's side, etc.) Next, go through the whole chapter of Leviticus 18 and cross off all of the forbidden relationships specified in Scripture. Then see what lines remains. There are four women that are close kin to the man which are NOT forbidden for him to take as a wife. Identify these four women and see what explanation fits the scenario. By doing this, I don't need to spell it out (and deflect the fiery darts sure to come), and you can have the personal assurance that you came to the conclusion based on what God's Word actually says (rather than what many people believe it says or want you to believe it says).

Like I said before, it's not hard to understand, it's just hard to accept.

In His love,
David

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

David, is there a reason why you are not addressing the natural science argument that I have spoken of?

The reason it "became sin" is very simple: The DNA breakdown of the human gene pool. It became unloving because it was damaging to the child, whereas before there was no damage to the child. Genetics! One could even argue that it also violated the purpose of extending families outward, the missionary purpose of Israel. But certainly the gene pool issue is the first and clearest reason.

The universal law, which was even written on the hearts of the Gentiles 9which it looks like you are not recognizing or accepting) would also bear witness to their hearts as well when God through common grace (which is to all of the human race, not just to Israel) wrote that law on their hearts just as he wrote the law on tablets of stone through Moses (Rom 2, specifically verse 15).

Many of the laws in the Mosaic Code reflect adjustments to what was allowed before. All the Leviticus code did was add some more narrow restrictions or regulations to this.

And I'm surprised that with your love for Jewish history this would not be your view. From my training by some from some of the doctors of the Messianic and Orthodox Jewish background this is the generally accepted position that Sibling sexual relations was accepted for a time just like other things were until later regulations altered it due to the progress in God's revelation.

We certainly see that there was a difference in Leviticus sexual laws and the Romans 1:26, or an adjustment, or an addition, or progress, or whatever vernacular one wants to use to describe some specific that was left out of the Lev text.

But, by all means feel free to PM me what it is you would like to discuss. I'll be glad to ask the other staff members here if we want to allow it to be posted or discussed herein.

But I do think you ought to interact with the DNA position as it reflects both a natural and theological point of view as well as a common Jewish/Hebraic position on this subject. We see progress and adjustments through Scripture so there is no harm in there being an adjustment herein unless there is some other presupposition forcing one to have to look for another position, which is what I believe is the case here for you.

Dr. Allen

 

[Anonymous]

David, is there a reason why you are not addressing the natural science argument that I have spoken of?

No, not at all. I just didn't see it as relevant, as I was looking for a Scriptural response, not a scientific one. While there may well be many good scientific reasons for doing something or not doing something, that doesn't mean it is Scriptural. It's simply not necessary to look outside of Scripture for the answer, especially as Scripture sufficiently provides it.

To extend the same argument further, I could argue that smoking cigarettes is sinful, because it can harm the physical body. The same with drinking caffeine, playing extreme sports, visiting a tanning salon, overeating, using birth control, etc. The moment we make a claim that something "became sin", I will be looking for the chapter and verse to back that statement up. Simply saying something MUST HAVE "become sin" because science supports that view is insufficient. Now we're back to defining sin based on human reasoning and logic, as opposed to what God actually says in His Word. Only God gets to define sin. Either He says something is sin or He doesn't.

Besides which, it's easy to disprove this DNA argument from Scripture. If the "natural science argument" was correct, then uncle-niece unions would also apparently need to be classified as "new sin" as well. Yet Lev. 18 does not prohibit uncle-niece relations, so that argument completely falls apart. I'm not saying that issues with corrupt DNA can't create problems with offspring, but neither will I say that science can now define sin for us.

The reason I asked the specific unanswered questions I did was because they demonstrate the problem with this type of thinking. When exactly did "close kin/DNA issues" become sin and for whom? At creation? Before Sinai? After Jesus? Israel only? Gentiles before Jesus? Where is the Scriptural evidence for this theory? Before I definitively call something sin, I want to see the chapter and verse to back it up.

I simply don't subscribe to the idea that sibling unions were somehow accepted by God only for a time, and then God changed His mind on the subject of marriage. There is no Scriptural evidence to support this view, and there is Scriptural evidence (Lev. 18) that appears to refute this view. It also stands opposed to His character. Either sexual morality and the Scriptural definition of marriage is eternal or it is not. It can't be both.

If sexual morality and the Scriptural definition of marriage is eternal, then what was once sinful is still sinful. It was sinful for gentiles and it was sinful for Israel. It was sinful for Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David.

If sexual morality and the Scriptural definition of marriage is not eternal, then what was once sinful may now be righteous, and what was once righteous may now be sinful. It was not sinful for Adam, Noah or Abraham, but it apparently became sinful for Moses and David. We'd then have to look to relevant Scripture to determine which sexual laws actually apply to gentiles in a post-Mosaic age world.

We certainly see that there was a difference in Leviticus sexual laws and the Romans 1:26, or an adjustment, or an addition, or progress, or whatever vernacular one wants to use to describe some specific that was left out of the Lev text.

To what difference do you refer? Sodomy was forbidden in Leviticus 18:22 and is the same subject of Romans 1:26. What addition or adjustment do you believe you see here?

In His love,
David

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Ahhh, that speaks volumes about your theological presuppositions I believe. But I'd like to be sure I do see what I think I see.

Therefore, here are some questions to aid this discussion:

1. Do you affirm classical or presuppositional apologetics?

2. What do you think of this statement: "All truth, whether math, science, scripture, or historical is God's truth."

3. What makes you think that marriage is "an eternal law" instead of an earthly temporal law?

4. Furthermore can a law be temporal and still reflect the character of God? If not then what about the adjustments throughout the law code between the Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ, which as I understand you do affirm as it sounds.

5. What is your doctrine on Psalm 19 and the classical theological position of general revelation? Do you assign any value to it?

6. Can we learn algebra and trig from the bible alone?

7. Define for me your definition of progressive revelation if you would.

And one more that I forgot in the first posting of this:

8. What is your theological position on the doctrine or ideology known as the regulative principle? Which side of that interpretive guide do you fall upon?

Knowing that, along with the other seven, will be a big help as well for me to see what set of glasses you have on when you read Scripture.

Dr. Allen

****To others reading this: if you would for a moment try and not add a lot of in between conversations for just a little bit here so we don't get too sidetracked for the next little bit, THANKS******

 

[Anonymous]

Just a quick thought here....
In order for an uncle to procreate with a niece, there would have had to have been sibling intermarriage at some point earlier for there to be a niece in existence. No matter how you slice it, sibling intermarriage took place.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Just a quick thought here....
In order for an uncle to procreate with a niece, there would have had to have been sibling intermarriage at some point earlier for there to be a niece in existence. No matter how you slice it, sibling intermarriage took place.
Blessings,
Fairlight

I was not saying that they married their niece and therefor no one married a sibling.

I simply mentioned it, because it took me years to notice that, so when I mention those passages (which I mentioned for other reasons in response to another question) I usually mention that in case other people missed it and happen to want to marry their niece. Also because it is interesting that someone can marry their niece but not their aunt even though I would guess they (a niece and an aunt of the same man) would probably have approximately the same percentage of shared genetics (with the man) in my guestimate (without calculations) which could be totally wrong. Of course I do not want to marry a niece of mine but I think people should be allowed to if God has not forbidden it.

If I am wrong and people are not allowed to marry their niece or are allowed to marry their aunt in the Bible please let me know where, I do not want to teach false teachings.

 

[Anonymous]

Dr. Allen,

Please forgive me, I mean no disrespect but Scripture was written in a way that its teachings are able to be understood by ordinary Believers. Your questions only serve to over-complicate things and deflect from the issue at hand, namely, whether God changed His laws concerning sexual morality and the definition of marriage over time. I say He did not, and you appear to be saying that He did. I can appreciate that you would prefer to compartmentalize my beliefs, but I'm really only interested in discussing what Scripture says on the matter, not dancing around a thousand different doctrinal positions (many of which I have no opinion on). Feel free to point out any verses you believe are DIRECTLY relevant, but I don't plan on engaging in theological calisthenics just for the sake of debate.

In His love,
David

 

[Anonymous]

I was not saying that they married their niece and therefor no one married a sibling.

I simply mentioned it, because it took me years to notice that, so when I mention those passages (which I mentioned for other reasons in response to another question) I usually mention that in case other people missed it and happen to want to marry their niece.

If I am wrong and people are not allowed to marry their niece or are allowed to marry their aunt in the Bible please let me know where, I do not want to teach false teachings.

You are correct. Nowhere in Scripture is anyone forbidden from marrying their niece. That is one of the four women which are NOT prohibited in the Leviticus 18 sexual laws. One might make an argument against marrying a niece from a genetic concern for their offspring, but it is not a Scriptural sin for a man to marry his niece. That's just man inventing new sins again.

In His love,
David

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Dr. Allen,

Please forgive me, I mean no disrespect but Scripture was written in a way that its teachings are able to be understood by ordinary Believers. Your questions only serve to over-complicate things and deflect from the issue at hand, namely, whether God changed His laws concerning sexual morality and the definition of marriage over time. I say He did not, and you appear to be saying that He did. I can appreciate that you would prefer to compartmentalize my beliefs, but I'm really only interested in discussing what Scripture says on the matter, not dancing around a thousand different doctrinal positions (many of which I have no opinion on). Feel free to point out any verses you believe are DIRECTLY relevant, but I don't plan on engaging in theological calisthenics just for the sake of debate.

In His love,
David

If you believe morality is not a function of time and "different" in one time than another... Should people be executed for the numerous executable offenses in the old testament, not just who they have sex with and who they murder, but also for numerous religious details that might have only been revealed to the Jews after they were given by God through Moses? Have you ever used a gas burning stove in your house on Saturday, if so it is too late to change. You do not give them another chance in the OT you just execute them immediately. If you are really serious this is what must be done, otherwise don't play these OT games with me. I do not believe that everything in the OT is a command to be obeyed today, so I am not obligated to execute, but if you believe it is a command to be obeyed today you are obligated to be an executioner and I will not believe you are serious until I hear about your day in court on the news. :lol:

By the way I am not saying that he should commit violent actions against Sabbath breakers because I do not believe the Sabbath is a command today

14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death
Exodus 31:14-15 NIV

1 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: 2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. 3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day."
Exodus 31:1-3 NIV

32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
Numbers 15:32-36 NIV

 

[Anonymous]

Just a quick thought here....
In order for an uncle to procreate with a niece, there would have had to have been sibling intermarriage at some point earlier for there to be a niece in existence. No matter how you slice it, sibling intermarriage took place.
Blessings,
Fairlight

I was not saying that they married their niece and therefor no one married a sibling.

I simply mentioned it, because it took me years to notice that, so when I mention those passages (which I mentioned for other reasons in response to another question) I usually mention that in case other people missed it and happen to want to marry their niece. Also because it is interesting that someone can marry their niece but not their aunt even though I would guess they (a niece and an aunt of the same man) would probably have approximately the same percentage of shared genetics (with the man) in my guestimate (without calculations) which could be totally wrong. Of course I do not want to marry a niece of mine but I think people should be allowed to if God has not forbidden it.

If I am wrong and people are not allowed to marry their niece or are allowed to marry their aunt in the Bible please let me know where, I do not want to teach false teachings.

My post was not in reference to yours.
I was commenting on the idea that sibling procreation didn't happen. It had to have happened in order for there to have been nieces available to marry or procreate with later.
Blessings,
Fairlight

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Dr. Allen,

Please forgive me, I mean no disrespect but Scripture was written in a way that its teachings are able to be understood by ordinary Believers. Your questions only serve to over-complicate things and deflect from the issue at hand, namely, whether God changed His laws concerning sexual morality and the definition of marriage over time. I say He did not, and you appear to be saying that He did. I can appreciate that you would prefer to compartmentalize my beliefs, but I'm really only interested in discussing what Scripture says on the matter, not dancing around a thousand different doctrinal positions (many of which I have no opinion on). Feel free to point out any verses you believe are DIRECTLY relevant, but I don't plan on engaging in theological calisthenics just for the sake of debate.

In His love,
David

David, well please do not take my response as disrespectful or prideful either. This is not the intent or spirit behind this whatsoever. But I've been teaching theology as a professor some time and have spent many many years under the guidance of many doctors and I think see/sense a smoke screen here on your end by avoind these questions :lol:

First, I'm not asking you a "thousand different" things, just eight.

Second, there is no gymnastics (theological calisthenics as you call it) here by these questions. They are very relevant and important to the very essence of how one processes language, facts, and correlates those together in a system of coherernt or rationale thought.

Third, if for some reason my questions or terminology is too technical then by all means just say so and I'll try writing it another way. No problem at all if that is the issue. But, of course, some of my questions were even pulled from your own terms (i.e. eternal marriage).

Fourth, here is what I suspect, though maybe I am wrong. I suspect
(a) you are not able to answer these questions and maybe you do not want to say/admit this (no opinion as you say)
(b) you have never thought through these questions and they possibly frighten you to answer because you do not know what they will expose about your presuppositions,
(c) you may think these questions are esoteric and not germane to the subject.
(d) or a combination thereof of the above

As for the relevance issue I assure you these are key questions and important ones. They deal with something called prolegomena issues. They relate to how we actually approach the idea of learning, where we think knowledge can be found (epistemology), and how we interpret language, facts, and ideas. SO it is relevant, not some academic exercise of futility.

Many times people differ with their interpretation of the same set of facts or verses because they bring to the table a different set of presuppositions that lead the two people to different directions and they never know why this is the case. These questions are steps to uncover those assumptions and presuppositions so two people can see if the way they are even approaching the idea, subject at hand, or verse or topic of Scripture is a valid or invalid approach. Much has been resolved in many debates in this preliminary area. But many hours and ink has been spilled by those who have skipped this or not ventured to examine these foundational areas.

Just to show that point I'll use an example: the regulative principle. This issue has to do with does one believe we are free to do anything so long as it is not forbidden? Or does one believe we can only do the things that are specfically stated in a positive command and if not we are then not free to do it. How practical is this? SOme churches will use musical instruments and some will not. Why the difference? Because of the way the regulative principle and how it is viewed. Most all theologians realize the significance this has on the way we view God's law, the progression of his laws or truth, and how these laws obligate us. It was a huge debate among the Puritans and Pilgrims, who were by far some of the most devout and pious teachers ever known to the history of the Church as Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd Jones so well stated.

So, I assure you if you will answer the questions it will provide much in helping to lay the ground work for the discussion. So if you are up to it then open up and share your thoughts on these questions.

Furthermore, as already noted, I asked about your terms and where you develop the idea and substance to them, such as "eternal marriage." I'm not trying to compartmentalize you, or deflect from any issue at hand. As I have noted above, in teaching students I have discovered more times than not that these questions will do much in showing what one is bringing to the table behind the scenes and thus will show what is underlying one's methodology to biblical interpretation.

In answering these questions and the dialog that stems from it, such will either help prove your case, or even dispove it, by showing your assumptions, consistencies, or inconsistencies.

Your call though. If you want to sharpen your biblical/theological razor then by all means dive in. I'm open to answering any of these questions as well myself.

Dr. Allen

PS: The option is also still open for you as well. If you would like to post the "subject you are not posting out of respect to the BF moderators" then private message us or email us and let us see it and we'll talk about it and see if it is acceptable to post and be viewed and examined by all here in the public forums.

 

[Anonymous]

If you believe morality is not a function of time and "different" in one time than another... Should people be executed for the numerous executable offenses in the old testament, not just who they have sex with and who they murder, but also for numerous religious details that might have only been revealed to the Jews after they were given by God through Moses? Have you ever used a gas burning stove in your house on Saturday, if so it is too late to change. You do not give them another chance in the OT you just execute them immediately. If you are really serious this is what must be done, otherwise don't play these OT games with me. I do not believe that everything in the OT is a command to be obeyed today, so I am not obligated to execute, but if you believe it is a command to be obeyed today you are obligated to be an executioner and I will not believe you are serious until I hear about your day in court on the news. :lol:

No, of course they shouldn't be executed. The issue here is only whether something is righteous or sinful, not what form of punishment might have been applicable for committing that sin under the obsolete Mosaic Covenant. I thought I was clear that I do not believe ANY part of the Mosaic Law is applicable to Believers today, not the least of which would be the punishments spelled out under that Covenant system. My position was that all sexual sin was made known to Adam and therefore superseded Sinai. Sodomy and beastiality was forbidden to all mankind, independent of the fact that these prohibitions were also included in the Mosaic Law. They were always sin for all men in all ages. They were sin before, during and after the Mosaic age. They were sin to both Jews and gentiles. In contrast, anything that was uniquely prohibited during the Mosaic Covenant and ONLY prohibited for the children of Israel would NOT carry over to Believers today, anymore than it would have been applicable to the gentiles of that era. Does that make more sense of what I'm saying?

With that understanding, I am saying that sibling marriage would also have been understood as being forbidden from Adam forward, on the basis that it is also explicitly forbidden in the list of sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18. To say otherwise requires that God redefined marriage solely for the nation of Israel, because the Mosaic Law was never intended for the gentiles. Consider the case with beastiality. It is only ever prohibited in Exodus 22:19 and Leviticus 18:23 (both Mosaic law passages). Do we then claim that beastiality only became sin at Sinai and that it was perfectly righteous prior to the Mosaic Covenant? I would certainly hope not! To be Scripturally consistent, anything we say about sibling relations also would apply to beastiality, since they only ever appear in the Mosaic Covenant (never before, never again).

In any event, this whole issue has actually only come up because of the assumption that sibling sexual union must have occurred in order for the human race to procreate. I simply challenged that false assumption. Regardless whether some people can see past their paradigms to the obvious, Lev. 18 provides us with the exhaustive list of all sexual sins. Once we study and realize that sibling sexual union was NEVER required in order for Seth to have a wife, the need to make sibling sexual union righteous is removed.

In His love,
David

 

[sweetlissa]

This was written to all the children of Israel, both men and women

God, through Moses, exhorted the Children of Israel not to behave as the Egyptians or the Canaanites when marrying. These cultures were in the habit of encouraging incestuous marriages.

Lev 18:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
Lev 18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Lev 18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man (H120=Mankind or human beings) do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

Lev 18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

Near kin=blood relative

Lev 18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

This precludes father/daughter relationships

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

This precludes relationship between man and his father's wife (step-mother or mother)

Lev 18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

This precludes relationships between man and any sister

Lev 18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

This precludes relationships between man and granddaughter

Lev 18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

This precludes relationship with sister or half-sister

Lev 18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

This precludes relationship with aunts

Lev 18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

This precludes relationship with aunts

Lev 18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

This precludes relationship with uncles or aunts
Logically this precludes relationship with niece or nephew because if they aren't your aunt or uncle then the other isn't niece or nephew.


Lev 18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

This precludes relationship with daughter-in-law. (This would be adultery, wouldn't it?)


Lev 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

Precludes relationship with sister-in-law. (This would be adultery, wouldn't it? And if the husband is dead, what about the Levirite Law requiring a brother to marry his dead brother's wife in order to give him a son)

Lev 18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

Precludes relationship with both a mother and a daughter

Lev 18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

Precludes relationship with two sisters if it is done to cause problems for the sisters

Lev 18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

Precludes sexual activity with a woman during her menses

Lev 18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Precludes relationship with a neighbor's wife. (This would be adultery)


According to A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments terms

"to uncover the nakedness"
" to lie with"
"to take"

are all synonomous. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown)

According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary, The term "to uncover the nakedness" means to have sexual relations. The Hebrew uses the euphemism, translated literally. (Walvoord & Zuck)

Be Holy by Wiersbe says that "uncover the nakedness" means to have "sexual relations with."


I don't see a direct prohibition for Grandmothers or cousins, but how would they have gotten grandmothers or cousins without first violating one or more of these laws.

 

[Anonymous]

But, of course, some of my questions were even pulled from your own terms (i.e. eternal marriage).

Furthermore, as already noted, I asked about your terms and where you develop the idea and substance to them, such as "eternal marriage."

Just a quick response to correct an error. I never said anything about "eternal marriage", whatever that might mean. If you go back and check, you'll see I referred only to "the Scriptural definition of marriage" as either being eternal or not. Perhaps "unchanging" might be more accurate. I personally do not believe that God changed His definition of marriage, because I see no support for that idea from Scripture. I simply listed both possibilities and what conclusions we might draw from either.

"If sexual morality and the Scriptural definition of marriage is eternal..."

"If sexual morality and the Scriptural definition of marriage is not eternal..."

Otherwise, I believe my position on sibling sexual union is self-explanatory and bordering on repetitive. Feel free to prove/disprove it from Scripture as you wish. I'm not looking for a classroom, just offering some insight.

Always in His love,
David

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I believe my position on sibling sexual union is self-explanatory and bordering on repetitive. Feel free to prove/disprove it from Scripture as you wish. I'm not looking for a classroom, just offering some insight.

Well I would offer something to show what appears to me to be inconsistencies in your "insights" if we could establish some ground rules on what we believe as far as assumptions and presuppositions that govern the way we view language and the proper way to interpret that language and facts.

But, if as you say, you're not interested in an education or classes or discussions that are designed for preliminary analysis to the subject/topic then so be it. Not everyone likes examining presuppositions brought into the text. I don't like looking at my own presuppositions either at times so I understand. It is hard and tough when I am called to examine my presuppositions by others who do this to me to force me to examine such things. But, generally, even though emotionally uncomfortable to me at the time the process does more often than not yield good results when done. It is kinda of like when a surgeon does preliminary prep work to get one prepared for surgery. It is not pleasant but often needed. No hard feelings on my end though if you not interested.

And the offer still stands: If you want to discuss something openly on the forums here about this (or something related) and you think it might be offensive email that to us here at the staff and we'll talk it over. It may be something that can be posted. It is worth a try if you want to discuss it openly.