Do fathers "own" their daughters?

[sweetlissa]

Djanakes
You asked for scripture-

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.

Abram married his half-sister Sarai. Half-sister is one of the "close relations" that is made unlawful in Leviticus 18
Gen 20:11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.
Gen 20:12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

I don't see how you can get around that.

SweetLissa

 

[Mark C]

Should people be executed for the numerous executable offenses in the old testament...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.

Show me the "gas burning stove" prohibition in the "OT"! That bit of unsupported tripe sounds a LOT like a prohibition of "adding to" what He Wrote. (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, and the Last Warning in Revelation as well!)

I suspect you don't have a clue why Deuteronomy 21:18-18 is referred to as the commandment which is never actually carried out! That does NOT mean that it has not been effectively used to teach generations of young people anyway!

It seems that you don't know what the Torah says, OR the history, and you certainly don't understand what the "Torah Made Flesh", Yahushua the Messiah, taught about it! There is a vast difference between simply misunderstanding Scripture and trying to teach things which undermine His Word itself! (Those who twist Scripture to claim that the "NT" is responsible for the atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition are no less culpable of the same error, BTW.)

And what difference does anything Scripture might have said about fathers and daughters make ANYWAY, if it is all "old" and "done away with"? Heaven knows I don't want to be called "intolerant" in today's Post-Biblical society. But YHVH Wrote things down in His Word for a reason, and He said He "changes not". He really does hold those who claim to teach for Him to a higher standard.

Please read (and pray about) Matthew 5:17-19 before trying to teach such fallacy.

 

[Mark C]

Abram married his half-sister Sarai. Half-sister is one of the "close relations" that is made unlawful in Leviticus 18...
I don't see how you can get around that.

Great point, Lissa. While YHVH repeatedly said (and Yahushua confirmed) that He "changes not", He certainly said no such similar thing about our own DNA. After all, our lifespans decreased as well after the Flood, and He made it clear that He would bring plagues against those who rebelled against Him.

After all, similar logic has people "adding to" His Word requirements that He never Wrote...from claiming that turning on a light bulb or a furnace is akin to "kindling a fire" to restrictions on what constitute a "Sabbath day's journey". It is good that we seek to understand His commandments, and do them. But it's not so good to put ourselves in His place and rewrite them for Him.

 

[Seth]

The gas stove statement was based on this scripture:
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

Sometimes I notice in threads, people flip out on others, and I can't really figure out why? Lots of people have different interpretation than I, and I might not think they are very bright, good at using logic, etc. But isn't language along the lines of they are false teachers, going to burn in hell, apostate, etc, slightly excessive? Or it seems to descend into personal attacks in other threads, I've been watching. Accusations of laziness, stupidity, etc are leveled at them. Where is the benefit in such responses? What is our goal? I don't find myself in agreement with lots of kr's posts. When I see that further discussion on a topic isn't profitable, I just stop posting, or thank him for his time and appreciate his contribution. I enjoy discussing the subject with him. Do you guys enjoy discussing stuff? Because it seems that people go out of their way to misunderstand/misinterpret their "opponent". The vast majority of people that wade through these forums, feel they are informed, well studied, lovers of God. You don't have to protect the "sheep" here by lambasting a viewpoint that seems erroneous. Say where you think they are wrong, explain why in polite language. If you can't come to a resolution, which seems largely the case, then just let it go

 

[Mark C]

The gas stove statement was based on this scripture:
...Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day."
Exodus 31:1-3 NIV[sic]

I know the reference (even if the reference was incorrect, and the translation dubious)

...it was the extrapolation, and the twisting, with which I took issue.


There is a famous atheist tome, directed at a prominent columnist, which seeks to claim that all those who "believe" the Bible are intolerant idiots and judgmental boors, based on very similar "analysis" of commandments from sacrifices and the Sabbath to "slavery". Our Savior was, conversely, quite hard on the Pharisees for taking it upon themselves to rewrite His ordinances for not only the Sabbath, but any number of other "traditions of the elders" as well. The common thread is seeking to "replace the commandments of YHVH with the traditions of men". That process often involves the claim that He can't POSSIBLY (if He exists at all!) still mean any of that "old" stuff NOW.

In almost every case, I contend, the problem is in OUR understanding, or lack thereof, rather than in His "teaching and instruction". Even the fact that there may be an example in Scripture of a specific case -- whether it's a man who specifically "kindled a fire" in rebellion to His specific direction, or a woman who was allegedly "caught" in adultery, but without an obvious cohort -- is generally intended as TEACHING for us, rather than a single template to be applied without justice, mercy, or understanding, in EVERY instance.

This is the reason why I contend the beautiful summary of Deuteronomy 30 is so important. If there is a single two-word English summary of HOW we are to "rightly divide" His "teaching and instruction", it is "choose life!"

Blessings,
Mark

 

[Seth]

Hehe, your right that was wrong reference, it's chap 35, thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Sometimes I notice in threads, people flip out on others, and I can't really figure out why? Lots of people have different interpretation than I, and I might not think they are very bright, good at using logic, etc. But isn't language along the lines of they are false teachers, going to burn in hell, apostate, etc, slightly excessive? Or it seems to descend into personal attacks in other threads, I've been watching. Accusations of laziness, stupidity, etc are leveled at them. Where is the benefit in such responses? What is our goal? I don't find myself in agreement with lots of kr's posts. When I see that further discussion on a topic isn't profitable, I just stop posting, or thank him for his time and appreciate his contribution. I enjoy discussing the subject with him

.

Seth, you are right on target. Maturity is the issue. A mature person with mature character can interact with those they differ with in respectful ways. The terms or phrases, "burn in hell, apostate, false teachers," should really be reserved for someone who denies one of the most foundational or cardinal teachings of the faith that would be damning to one's soul. Some examples would be: denying one member of the Trinity as being God, believing some other book is as inspired as the Bible or that the Bible is in error, that salvation is by man's effort instead of by Christ's atonment given through grace.

As far as accusations of calling people "stupid" or derogatory terms this should not be and if you see something like please report it to the staff. We want to try and keep these forums as civil as possible as we promote maturity among all who discuss topics.

And, by the way, thanks for the maturity you show in our conversations. It is appreciated!

 

[Seth]

Hugs, I'm about to get myself in so much trouble but I can't resist *duncecap*

I had an excellent conversation with a guy years ago that wasn't a trinitarian, I dismissed him out of hand but over the years have thought about what he said. I like the trinity and find it the best answer for explaining my relationship with God, Jesus, and the Spirit. But after much consideration, I don't know that it's the best/only answer. Just the only best answer I can come up with. I want to accord the words of Jesus with monotheism and so I use trinity to explain this accord. But it could be bad doctrine. Just like other doctrine we create to explain the nature of God, with what is told us in the bible. It's our explanation of what we perceive. Doesn't mean it's fact, just our explanation. As to the Bible, I LOVE it, think it's incredible, and useful for how I should direct my life. But there does seem to be a transcription error in describing a certain conflict between two books. There are differences between manuscripts. So when people say things like there is no error in the Bible, I get a little hesitant about shouting amen. As to other books being inspired, the decision on what's inspired and not inspired, comes out of a catholic council, and then later out of a protestant one...councils of men. There is objectively that which is inspired of God, and that which isn't. But again we make the best determination that we can on what is or isn't. Is Ezra inspired, is Esdras? God knows, but I don't. On the upside we agree it's about grace .....as long as we can agree that works are useful/important, just not saving!

Hugs, I know you were being supercool in this post, and I just threw a wrench in it. My apologies. If want to delete this and just respond to me in pm, thats totally kewl with me

 

[Mark C]

The terms or phrases, "burn in hell, apostate, false teachers," should really be reserved for someone who denies one of the most foundational or cardinal teachings of the faith that would be damning to one's soul. Some examples would be: denying one member of the Trinity as being God, believing some other book is as inspired as the Bible or that the Bible is in error, that salvation is by man's effort instead of by Christ's atonement given through grace.

Wow, based on that description, the Savior Himself would be in trouble for calling the Pharisees not only "Hypocrites!" but "vipers", and "sons of hell" (Matthew 23, etc.). After all, He specifically taught that teachers were to be held to a higher standard (via more than one witness), but never explicitly taught the "Trinity" -- although He certainly did say that He came "in My Father's Name", and did nothing without His direction. But he definitely railed at those hypocrites for having the chutzpah to "add to" His Word things that He did not Write -- "by your tradition".

I tend to think your list is missing one of the most important items, which is calling Him a liar. (This admittedly bothers me far more than a math issue like whether "three equals one", why "Elohim" is plural, or what echad means. No sense breaking fellowship over such, since I suspect our minds don't quite wrap around it anyway.) But, after all, when He says that "not one jot or tittle" of His "teaching and instruction" will pass so long as "heaven and earth" still exist, why would I choose to believe a 'church doctrine' which claims otherwise? The concept of letting Him be True, and "every man a liar" sounds perhaps 'disrespectful' in that context.

As for believing that the "Bible is in error", the important question is "which one?" I certainly differ with those who think He spoke the King's English, and cannot spot obvious errors in the "Authorized Version", or seek out the Truth "for themselves" in the original language when discrepancies surface.

Come to think of it, he was pretty hard on the Nicolaitans, too.

 

[Anonymous]

Somehow I missed this earlier post (which was excellent work, btw). Just a few quick points...

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.

This phrasing is the reason I recommend checking the actual Hebrew wording of Lev. 18. That particular English translations leaves a bit to be desired. Here's another translation which is somewhat more accurate:

Lev. 18:6: "No one is to approach anyone of HIS own flesh to uncover HIS nakedness. I am Yahweh"

Of course, translations into English are not always exact. Here is the actual passage in the original Hebrew.

"iysh iysh el-Käl-sh'ër B'särô lo tiq'r'vû l'gaLôt er'wäh ániy y'hwäh"

Recognize that word "iysh" there twice? It refers to a man, or a male person. This passage is addressed directly to men, not simply humankind in general. When some sexual prohibition does apply to women (such as with beastiality), the passage specifically says so (see verse 23 as evidence). Scripture is ALWAYS gender specific when speaking of sexual matters.

This statement is not simply saying "anyone of close relation". That would make most of the remaining passages superfluous. This passage tells the MAN not to uncover the nakedness of any MALE of close kin. There is no need for God to spell out which males that includes. Conversely, the remaining passages spell out which FEMALES of close kin a MAN is forbidden to uncover. He was speaking of two different cases. No male kin. Most (but not all) female kin.

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

A MAN is not to uncover the nakedness of his father or the nakedness of his mother. He is not to uncover either of them (think Ham and Noah). Where do you read anything about a daughter in this verse? The passage is addressed to the MAN, not humankind.

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.

Yeah, actually this verse is referring to one's aunt on his father's side. The nakedness of his father's brother IS his father's brother's wife (compare with verse 8, verse 16, etc.) She IS his nakedness. The prohibition is only the man's aunt (his father's brother's wife).

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?)

No, adultery is sexual intercourse with another man's wife. These passages speak only to "uncovering one's nakedness", which is not the same thing (compare with verse 20 where intercourse is specified). This verse says the man may not even uncover his daughter-in-law, which by definition also neatly prevents intercourse. This may seem like splitting hairs, but these distinctions are quite significant when unraveling the correct meanings.

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)

Again, not adultery when only uncovering, though a prohibition of uncovering encompasses that as well. Uncovering includes ANY sexual contact, including visual. Adultery is much more specific. As for Leverite law, the living brother is required to take the dead brother's wife as his own, superseding this general prohibition. In all other cases, it remained prohibited to even uncover his brother's wife.

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

Correct. And this phrase "in her lifetime" or "while the other is alive" demonstrates that this passage specifically means simultaneously, suggesting all the other "her AND her" prohibitions are applicable even after death.

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

Correct. Any sexual contact, including visual.

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."

Unfortunately, in this case, these commentaries are wrong. The phrase "shekobeth zera" speaks specifically of laying down and planting seed, which is a direct reference to sexual intercourse. The Hebrew term "'ervah" refers broadly to genital nudity, and includes ALL imaginable forms of sexual contact. Verse 20 prohibits "shekobeth zera" with the wife of one's neighbor, which would be clear adultery. Other verses that prohibit "'ervah" with specific female family members are even more restrictive and prevent ANY kind of sexual contact with their genitals, including visual. These terms are related. They are not synonyms.

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.

Well, grandmothers would have been absolutely impossible for Seth (the man from our example), since neither Adam nor Eve had any biological parents to be grandparents for Seth. As for cousins, I actually didn't have that on my list of permissible relations, because at the time when our assembly did the studies, we had already concluded that a niece was eligible, so cousins (of any degree) just seemed extraneous. But I'd rather be thorough, so I'll update my notes accordingly.

Overall, I think this was a fairly good analysis. We should be much closer to seeing that sibling relations were not necessary for Seth to obtain a wife, which is all I was originally trying to point out. Thanks Lissa!

Always in His love,
David

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Abram married his half-sister Sarai. Half-sister is one of the "close relations" that is made unlawful in Leviticus 18
Gen 20:11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake.
Gen 20:12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

I don't see how you can get around that.

That is an excellent question and one which is easily resolvable for anyone who accepts polygynous marriages. This doesn't fly so well in monogynous-only circles, however.

Abraham married his step-sister (Terah's step-daughter). Terah had two wives and Sarah was the biological daughter of Terah's other wife (not Abraham's mother). Sarah was Terah's wife's daughter but not Terah's own biological daughter. She was blood-related to her mother (Terah's unnamed wife) but not to Terah and hence, not to Abraham.

Gen. 11:31a: "And Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot, son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram's wife, and they went out...."

Not Terah's daughter, but Terah's daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife. Terah was the lawful "father" of Sarai because she was his step-daughter, but Terah was not the biological father of Sarai. Scripture only calls Abram his offspring, but not Sarai. She was Terah's step-daughter, and therefore, Abram's step-sister. No conflict with Lev. 18 at all.

In His love,
David

 

[sweetlissa]

Funny, that isn't what the scripture says.

It says quite clearly that she was daughter to his father but not his mother.

Lissa

 

[Anonymous]

Funny, that isn't what the scripture says.

It says quite clearly that she was daughter to his father but not his mother.

Lissa

They have no word for step-daughter. As Terah's step-daughter without any biological connection, she would still be considered the daughter of Terah, yet other Scripture clearly says her relationship to Terah is that of a daughter-in-law as opposed to a daughter, while Abram is referred to as his actual son. It's not really important whether we agree here or not. My point was only to demonstrate that there is no conflict needed in any of these passages. Gen. 20:12 says that Sarai is the daughter of Terah. Gen. 11:31 says that Sarai is the daughter-in-law of Terah. We agree that both of these passages are true, even if we disagree as to its implications.

I doubt we can ever prove the point, one way or the other (nor should we need to), but at least now you have a reasonable explanation that aligns with the Scriptural evidence, which is what I think you were looking for when you presented this passage for comment. What IS important is that we keep studying the Word for ourselves and allow Him to continue revealing His truth to us. We don't have to agree on every point in order to learn more and more from Scripture. I trust He will reveal what He determines to reveal in due course.

In His love,
David

P.S. I readily admit that I may be wrong, and that's okay too. That's why we keep studying these passages and see where they lead.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Alright, as the spokesman of the auction would say.....going once......going twice.......

you get the drift.....

I think we are just about to the end on this thread it looks so if anyone has any other comments on the "own" issue and how it all works then I would go ahead and get it out as it's about time to close this one and allow room for some new topics to come forth.

This one has taken a new route in a sense anyway so any other last ideas before we close close this one (probably on Friday)

 

[Anonymous]

This one has taken a new route in a sense anyway so any other last ideas before we close close this one (probably on Friday)

I think we've all learned a lot about some of these passages, so it's been a worthwhile endeavor. In a separate e-mail conversation, one other thing has come up which is related and has not yet been discussed, but it may be helpful for those continuing to study this subject in depth.

I have provided Scriptural evidence that sibling marriage was NEVER required from the time of Adam forward. It was perfectly possible for Seth to acquire a wife without any brother-sisters relations taking place by anyone. Likewise, the question of Abraham and Sarah has been addressed and easily explained how she did not have to be the biological daughter of Terah. No passage of Scripture has demonstrated that any of these individuals MUST HAVE violated the sexual laws recorded in Leviticus 18.

HOWEVER, as Dr. Keith has pointed out, the Mosaic Law did not apply to anyone prior to Sinai, nor to any gentiles during the time of Israel, so one could legitimately argue that the sexual laws recorded in Leviticus 18 may not have all existed from the beginning of time and/or may not have applied to ALL men, but only to the children of Israel for a season. This explanation effectively means that God must have redefined His definition of marriage sometime between Adam and Moses.

So before we wrap this topic up, my question is this: Assuming the prohibition against sibling marriages did NOT actually exist prior to Sinai (as I have suggested), then who exactly might it apply to today? Does it apply to gentiles today when it was only part of the Mosaic law? Is the same true of beastiality (which also is only recorded in Mosaic law)? For that matter, do we have any assurances that God changed only ONE element of His definition of marriage, or could Biblical marriage have been altered even further?

I've stated my own position that Biblical marriage is a constant, not a variable that changes over time, but I'd be interested in others' views as well.

In His love,
David

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

The NC law of Christ specifically restated those portions of the Mosaic law, thus making it the law of Christ which was that sexual immorality is not optional for the believer in Christ. Numerous places in the apostolic writings the term pornia is used by the apostles. The Acts 15 decision at the Jerusalem Council applied the Mosaic Laws of Sexual Immorality to the NC believers under the law of Christ. So the incest laws, and beastiality laws, as well as others of Leviticus 18 would apply today because of specific application by apostolic revelation.

Since there was no redefining of sexual immorality the simple phrases applied by the apostles who were receiving NC revelation from the Holy Spirit (apstolic revelation).

So to briefly answer the question yes, from the Mosaic law period forward it appears that the law on sexual relations was established and set even though not every one of the 613 Mosaic laws were in place from the very beginning of time in regard to Adam and Eve.

Dr. Allen

A more applicable question would be does the laws on non-sexual relations during times of the ladies' menstrual cycle (and after) apply exactly today as spelled out in the Mosaic Law code. Another topic for another day......AND THREAD